The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court held that prima facie ingredients of the offences were made out and disputed facts remained, precluding interference at this stage.
W.P.(Cr.) No. 08 of 2023 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
----
W.P.(Cr.) No. 08 of 2023
----
Syed Zeeshan Quadri .... Petitioner
-- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
| For the Petitioner | :- | Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For the State | :- | Mr. Deepankar Roy, Advocate |
| For Informant/Resp.No.2 | :- | Ms. Oishi Das, Advocate |
| Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate ---- |
6 /01.11.2023 Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Ms. Oishi Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/Resp.No.2.
2
can be realized from the petitioner.
Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, MANU/SC/0534/
2023 and he refers to paragraph nos. 9 to 23 of the said judgment. Relying on this judgment, he submits that the case of the petitioner is covered in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the case is fit to be quashed. He submits that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Haji Iqbal alias Bala Through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others , 2023 SCC Online SC 946 that the Court is required to read the materials between the lines.
3
occupied the hotel room and did not make the payment and later on the informant was avoided intentionally by the petitioner for payment. No attempt was made by the accused petitioner to ensure the payment to the informant and mens-rea of the petitioner for committed criminal breach of trust is made out and intention is there to cheat the informant from the very beginning.
“ 31. In our considered opinion, once the court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code.
32. The very fact that the High Court in this case went into the minutest details in relation to every aspect of the case and devoted 89 pages judgment to quash the FIR in part led us to draw a conclusion that the High Court had exceeded its powers while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. We cannot concur with such approach of the High Court.”
case in hand, the disputed question of facts are involved and in view of that, this Court may not interfere for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as the investigation is going on.
4
behalf of the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the contents of the F.I.R. In the F.I.R there is allegation as for a long period, the rooms of the said hotel were booked, however, a sum of Rs.29,05,898/- was not paid. For such a long period, the rooms were booked. It appears that with intention to cheat the informant, the rooms were booked and the final payment was not made and in view of that, the ingredients of section 415 of the IPC is prima facie made out. In order to bring home the offence of criminal breach of trust, the proof of entrustment is essential and prima facie in the case in hand, entrustment is there by way of providing the rooms and, thus, it cannot be said that section 406 IPC is not attracted. A reference may be made to the case of
Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC
631 . In view of the above, the Court finds that there are disputed question of facts are involved and by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India only the FIR is under challenge and even the investigation is not completed as yet. It is well settled that for exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court is required to remain vigilant and careful and any order is required to be passed with circumspection. In the case in hand, the investigation is still going on and the entire facts are incomplete and hazy. There are parameters of quashing of the F.I.R and on this aspect, the case of the State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, (1992) 1 Supp. SC 335 holds the field. It is further well settled that if criminality is made out, the civil as well as the criminal case both can go simultaneously as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Medchi Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. v. M/s Biological E. Ltd and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 269 , wherein at paragraph nos.14 and 15, it has been held as under:
“14. Needless to record however and it being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section
5
482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The observations in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi lend support to the above statement of law:
“(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings.”
15. In the matter under consideration, if we try to analyse the guidelines as specified in Shivalingappa case can it be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? In the present case, the complaint as noticed above does not, however, lend credence to the questions posed. It is now well settled and one need not dilate on this score, neither do we intend to do so presently that the allegations in the complaint will have to be accepted on the face of it and the truth or falsity of which would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage as noticed above: whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial and the observations on this score in
6
the case of Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna ought to be noticed. In para 3 of the Report this Court observed:
appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Kunti and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (supra), was passed in the facts and circumstances of that case. In that case, the matter was with regard to transfer of land by way of sale deed and considering the contract between the parties, that order has been passed. In the case in hand, the allegations are otherwise and prima facie the intention of cheating from the very beginning is made out and in view of that, the case relied by Mr. Pasari, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not helping the petitioner.
interference is made out.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
SI/,
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in a cheating case can be allowed when disputed questions of fact remain.
Whether the ingredients of cheating and criminal breach of trust are prima facie made out on the face of the FIR.
Whether the allegations in the FIR disclosing an intention to cheat from the beginning warrant the continuation of criminal investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kunti and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersReferred¶17
Kunti and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, MANU/SC/0534/2023
Haji Iqbal alias Bala Through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh and OthersReferred¶18
Haji Iqbal alias Bala Through S.P.O.A v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 946 · Who else cites this
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and OthersDistinguished¶22
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 104 · Who else cites this
Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu and KashmirRelied on¶30
Roshan Lal Raina v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 631 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. BhajanlalFollowed¶29
State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, (1992) 1 Supp. SC 335
M/s Medchi Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. v. M/s Biological E. Ltd and OthersFollowed¶29
M/s Medchi Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. v. M/s Biological E. Ltd and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 269 · Who else cites this
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa KonjalgiFollowed¶34
Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi
Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. v. P. RadhakrishnaFollowed¶39
Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Syed Zeeshan Quadri
The State of Jharkhand
Informant
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
