Dismissed

Rajat Maithy Alias Rajat Suvra Maiti Alias Rajat Maiti v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Oct 2023Cr.M.P./784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. The Court held that the allegations of cheating regarding unpaid car repair costs were distinct from civil insurance disputes and required investigation as a criminal offence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition quashing the FIR and proceedings was dismissed as without merit.

Rajat Maithy Alias Rajat Suvra Maiti Alias Rajat… — Cheating and Forgery | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Cr.M.P. No. 784 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 784 of 2023

¶4

Rajat Maithy @ Rajat Suvra Maiti @ Rajat Maiti, aged about 38 years, son of Premendu Maity, resident of Kshudiramnagar, P.O. & P.S.Midnapore, Dist.- West Midnapore, PIN- 721101 (West Bengal)

¶5

........Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Animesh Sanwariya, son of Anil Kumar Sanwariya, resident of Absolute Auto Pvt. Ltd., (Renault India) G.T.Road, Panduki, P.O, & P.S.- Barwadda, Dist.- Dhanbad ….. Opposite Parties

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Lal , Adv. For the State : Mr. B.N.Ojha, Addl.PP

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶12

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶13

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well the FIR in connection with Barwadda P.S. case no. 143 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409/ 34 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Dhanbad.

¶14

The brief fact of the case is that the informant is the owner of a outlet and also takes up the repairing work of the various cars. The co-accused Devashish Ghosh is the owner of the car bearing Registration No. JH15X3820. The said car met with an accident. The said car was insured with M/s Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited of which the petitioner is the Claims Manager. The co-accused Devashish Ghosh came at the car workshop of the informant and handed the car over to the workshop at Dhanbad. The petitioner, along with the other co-

¶15

¶16

Cr.M.P. No. 784 of 2023

¶17

accused Salman Hassan, who was a surveyor, inspected the vehicle and asked the complainant to submit his estimate for repair. The Workshop Manager of the informant submitted an estimate of Rs. 1,98,991/-. Including other expenses; the total estimate was given for Rs. 2,06,791/-. It is alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused Salman Hassan cheated the informant, thereby inducing him to repair the car, promising to make the payment of Rs. 1,98,991/-. Being thus induced by the petitioner and the co-accused persons, the complainant carried out the repair work, but after the repair work was done, the petitioner did not pay the amount of Rs. 1,98,991/- as promised to be paid by him and cheated the informant by inducing him to invest the said money for the repair of the said vehicle.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence as alleged has been committed by the petitioner as the insurance company has repudiated the insurance claim of the co-accused owner of the vehicle. It is then submitted that the matter is completely of civil nature. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr ., the citation or the case number of which, has not been mentioned in the para 6(vii) of this criminal miscellaneous petition, it is further submitted by learned counsels for the petitioner that therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has ruled out any effort to settle any civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the police has issued notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C, to the petitioner for appearing before it and the petitioner has already sent his reply to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this court, dated 19.01.2017 in CrMP No. 89 of 2005, dated 17.03.2023 in CrMP No. 1744 of 2022, dated 11.03.2015 in CrMP No. 50 of 2003 and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 148, Ashoke Mal Bafna vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg.

¶19

¶20

Cr.M.P. No. 784 of 2023

¶21

Co. Ltd. reported in (2018) 14 SCC 202, Aneeta Hada vs. M/s Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 661 and in the case of Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668 and submits that the entire criminal proceeding as well the FIR in connection with Barwadda P.S. case no. 143 of 2022, be quashed and set aside.

¶22

Learned Addl. PP on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding as well the FIR in connection with Barwadda P.S. case no. 143 of 2022 and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of inducing the informant to carry out the repair work worth Rs. 1,98,991/- and after thus cheating when the repair work was done, he refused to pay the promised amount hence the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under section 420 of the IPC. It is further submitted that unlike the facts of the cases, the judgments and orders of which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a civil dispute rather this is out and out a criminal case involving interalia the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is further submitted by learned Addl.PP that at this stage the investigation of the case is going on and it is a settled principle of law that the High Court should not quash the FIR, when the offence punishable in any penal provision of law is made out from the contents of the same, at the nascent stage, when the investigation of the case is going on, hence it is submitted that this petition being without a merit be dismissed .

¶23

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this court is of the considered view that this is not a civil case rather the allegations made in the complaint, which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3) of CrPC, the FIR of this case has been registered goes to show that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of cheating the informant by inducing him to invest money for repair over worth Rs. 1,98,991/- by promising through email to pay the said amount once the car is repaired and this fact has not

¶24

¶25

Cr.M.P. No. 784 of 2023

¶26

been disputed by the petitioner anywhere in this criminal miscellaneous petition and after the repair work was done, the petitioner refused to pay the promised amount by which he induced the informant to invest the said money in repair work of the vehicle. Further, it is a settled principle of law that High Court ought not quash the entire criminal proceeding at the nascent stage in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 482 of CrPC in terms of the judgment passed in the case of the Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Other reported in (2008) 8 SCC 781. It is needless to mention that the facts of the cases of the judgments and orders relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are entirely different from the facts of this case. Hence the ratio of those cases is not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶27

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered view that since there is no merit in this petition to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well the FIR in connection with Barwadda P.S. case no. 143 of 2022, hence this criminal miscellaneous petition be dismissed.

¶28

Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶30

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 11^th October, 2023 Smita /AFR

Rajat Maithy Alias Rajat Suvra Maiti Alias Rajat Maiti v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajat Maithy Alias Rajat Suvra Maiti Alias Rajat Maiti v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kripal Singh Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gajendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shrikant Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anis Kumar Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikas Kumar Thakur Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amrit Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand