Ranjeet Singh Rawat And Others vs Sambhu Prasad Juyal

Lok Pal Singh, J

Since the controversy involved in both these C482 applications is same, hence, for the sake of brevity and convenience, these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

By means of present criminal misc. applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C., applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 12.07.2011 passed by A.C.J.M, Dehradun as well as the entire proceedings of criminal case no.6695 of 2010 Sambhu Prasad v. Ranjeet Singh, under Section 420 of IPC.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a complaint stating that the complainant and his wife took a loan from Canara Bank, Branch Turner Road, for construction of house in plot khasra no.26 measuring 100 sq. mt. situated at Banjarawala Mafi Pargana Central Doon, Dehradun. On 01.04.2008, complainant and his wife entered into an agreement to sale with the accused Ranjeet Singh Rawat in a sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/-, and also received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards earnest money. Thereafter, the accused Ranjeet Singh Rawat showed his inability to buy the house and the agreement could not be materialized. The agreement came to an end and the complainant returned the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the accused. It is further stated that the complainant had mortgaged the papers of the property with the Canara Bank which were to be returned to him after re-payment of loan amount but when the complainant went to the Bank, co-accused K.S. Chauhan told him that he has given original sale deeds to accused/applicant Dharam Prakash Gupta as it was told to him that the loan has been paid by accused/applicant Ranjeet Singh Rawat and that the complainant and his wife have authorized him to take the original documents from the bank. Complainant further alleges that he had not authorized anyone to take the papers from bank. On the complaint, complaint case no.6695 of 2010 was registered. In support of his complaint, the complainant got examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Vinod Kumar, Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Clementown and Nirmal Punjabi, Assistant Manager, S.B.I, Dharampur, were examined. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and on perusal of the documents filed in support of the complainant, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Dehradun, vide order dated 12.07.2011, summoned the applicants to face trial under Section 420 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the criminal complaint has been filed after a delay of one year of the incident without there being any explanation for it. He would further submit that the wife of the complainant was not got examined u/s 202 Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the co-accused K.S. Chauhan was also named in the complaint and by the common summoning order, which is under challenge in the present applicant, he was also summoned by the Magistrate u/s 406 I.P.C., whereagainst he had filed C482 No.743 of 2011 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 05.05.2017, has been pleased to quash the summoning order, as also the entire proceedings of the criminal case no.6695 of 2010. Lastly, it is submitted that at the most, the dispute in the instant case is of civil nature and no criminal liability gets attracted against the applicants.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial court, after finding a prima-facie case against the applicants under Section 420 of IPC, has rightly summoned the applicants.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material available on record.

By the impugned summoning order, the applicants have been summoned under Section 420 of IPC. Section 420 of IPC would be relevant for the purpose, which reads as under:-

"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Cheating has been defined in Section 415 of IPC, which is reproduced hereunder:

"415. Cheating- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat"."

It is well settled in law that to hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In the present case, on a bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, it emerges out that there is no whisper in the complaint that at the very inception of the agreement between the parties, there was any intention to cheat. Ingredients of Cheating are apparently missing in the present case. Therefore, no case is made out against the applicants under Section 420 of IPC.

In the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 426, the Apex Court has reiterated the principle that the Courts can exercise their inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding, only when the allegations made in the FIR/ complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. Hon'ble Apex Court has categorized cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice :-

i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private or personal grudge.

In view of the above well settled proposition of law, this Court has no hesitation in invoking its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C in allowing the instant petition. Allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any offence. Present complainant is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, the summoning order dated 12.07.2011 passed by A.C.J.M, Dehradun in case no.6695 of 2010 Sambhu Prasad v. Ranjeet Singh, under Section 420 of IPC, and the proceedings emanating thereform are hereby quashed.

Both the applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stand allowed.