Ravinder Kumar @ Rinku And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another

Suvir Sehgal, J

The hearing of this petition has been taken up through video conferencing on account of outbreak of coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic.

Present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No.151 dated 13.07.2020 (Annexure P-

1) registered under Sections 342, 406, 420, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station City Sadar, Tohana, District Fatehabad.

The facts, in brief, are that FIR in question was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 against (1) Ravinder Kumar alias Rinku (2) Suman,

wife of Ravinder Kumar alias Rinku and (3) Jasvinder alias Jonni. The applicant stated that he is 12th pass and Jonni Saini, accused No.(3) was his

friend and through him, he met accused No.(1) on 31.12.2016 when the complainant was told that accused No.(1) sends people abroad and he works

with accused No.(2) and (3). The complainant expressed his desire to go to Canada and accused No.1 told him that a visa for Canada can be

arranged for Rs.41.00 lakhs. Initially, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant to accused No.1 on 03.03.2017. Over the period of time, more

than Rs.40 lakh was paid to the accused. But instead of sending him to Canada, the complainant-respondent No.2 was taken to the Vietnam and then

to Cambodia. The accused gave him a bogus visa and ticket. The complainant somehow managed to reach back to Delhi and subsequently to his

native village. When the complainant and his family members started demanding the money back, the accused not only refused to return the money

but also threatened them. It was in this background that the complaint was lodged with the police authorities.

Counsel for the petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR (Annexure P-1) on the ground that the FIR is a counter blast to the civil suit (Annexure P-3)

filed by the petitioner against respondent No.2 and another person for rendition of accounts. He further submits that a perusal of the FIR shows that

the offences as alleged in the FIR are not made out.

The petition has been resisted by the counsel representing the respondents. They have filed a reply and submitted that the petitioners were indulging in

human trafficking in collusion with each other and in the process, they had duped the petitioner of astronomical amount of money. It has been argued

by them that the complaint submitted by respondent No.2 was prior in point of time. Still further, it has been pointed out that the offences against the

petitioner are clearly made out and the petitioners despite repeated notices, failed to join the investigation, which is pending.

I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance.

The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner do not cut any ice. A perusal of the FIR (Annexure P-1) shows that the complaint had been

submitted by respondent No.2 on 28.05.2020, whereupon, enquiry was conducted and the petitioners were issued notices thrice by the investigating

officer but they failed to join the investigation and eventually, the impugned FIR was registered on 13.07.2020. In the meantime, petitioner No.1 filed a

civil suit for rendition of accounts against the complainant on 10.07.2020 upon which the trial Court issued notice (Annexure P-4). In the light of the

facts brought out by the respondents in their reply, it is apparent that the civil suit had been filed only with the intention to somehow wriggle out of the

allegations levelled against the petitioners.

It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) shows that there are specific and categoric allegations against the petitioners

regarding their involvement in human trafficking. The petitioners not only assured the complainant- respondent No.2 of sending him abroad but had

also given him bogus visa and tickets and in the process had taken more than Rs.40.00 lakhs from him. There is a video recording in the possession of

the investigating agency wherein petitioner No.1 is seen counting the bundles of currency notes given by the family members of the complainant who

are also visible.

During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner restricted the prayer of quashing of the FIR qua petitioners No.2 and 3. His prayer has

been considered. An examination of the allegations in the impugned FIR show that a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs was entrusted to petitioner No.2 and 3, who

gave a bogus visa to the complainant-respondent No. 2. In the light of these facts, even this prayer of the counsel deserves to be rejected.

The investigation is at its initial stage and the challan has not been presented. The petitioners are not cooperating with the investigating agency. They

are, therefore, not entitled to any relief. There is no ground for quashing of the FIR. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.