Quashed

Swarn Singh and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2014CRLMP/1192/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed criminal proceedings for breach of trust filed under Section 407 IPC, holding the matter to be a concluded civil dispute. Court noted over 25-year delay and deemed continued criminal trial an abuse of process, while reserving civil liability.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Criminal Regular Case No. 111/2005 quashed in toto for all accused, including petitioners and West Bengal Transport Complex Pvt. Ltd. and Jai Ma Khatod Carriers.

Swarn Singh and Anr. Vs State and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B.Cr.Misc.Pet. No. 1192/2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

Swarn Singh & anr. vs. The State of Raj. & anr.

¶6

S.B. Cr. Misc. Petitions No. 1192/2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 111/2005 and against the order dated 23.4.2005 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, District Bhilwara.

¶7

Date of Order : 9.7.2014

¶8

PRESENT

¶9

HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶10

Mr. Vineet Jain for the petitioner.. Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶11

BY THE COURT:

¶12

FIR No. 242/1991 was lodged at Police Station, Gangapur, District Bhilwara under Section 407 IPC by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Branch Gangapur, District Bhilwara and in this FIR, criminal breach of trust in relation to 78 bilties was said to have been caused by the accused-persons named therein in the year 1988. After investigation, the police submitted Final Report in the matter, but Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur, District Bhilwara by its order dated 23.4.2005 had taken cognizance against accused-petitioners Swarn Singh and Jagdish Singh and also against the West Bengal Transport Complex Pvt. Ltd. as well as against Jai Ma Khatod Carriers.

¶13

S.B.Cr.Misc.Pet. No. 1192/2009

¶14

¶15

Accused-petitioner Swarn Singh and Jagdish Singh have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court to quash criminal proceedings against them in the matter because as per them, the case was purely a civil transaction in which the Debt Recovery Tribunal has also applied its mind and civil matter (application no. 223/1996) was concluded on 29.9.1997 by that Tribunal too.

¶16

I have heard both the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor has generally opposed the matter and the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has not contested the matter at all. No doubt, criminal liability may co-exist with the civil liability, but in this matter, after perusal of the record of the court below and after going through the judgment of the civil application no. 223/1996 of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, this Court is of the firm view that the opinion given by the police while submitting the Final Report in the matter was fully justified and there was no occasion to convert the civil transaction into a case of criminal breach of trust. Otherwise also the incident relates to the year 1988 and more than twenty five years have passed since then. Certainly it will be an abuse of process if the criminal trial is allowed to continue. No doubt, the Inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings is to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and only in the rarest of rare case to secure the ends of justice. In the State of Haryana & ors. v. Bhajan Lal & ors., 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, some of the circumstances were enumerated by the Hon'ble

¶17

S.B.Cr.Misc.Pet. No. 1192/2009

¶18

¶19

Apex Court in which inherent powers of the Court under Section 482,Cr.P.C. may be exercised, which are as follows:-

¶20

“(1) 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.

¶21

(2) 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.

¶22

(3 Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission.

¶23

(4) 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.

¶24

(5) 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.

¶25

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

¶26

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide 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 and personal grudge”.

¶27

S.B.Cr.Misc.Pet. No. 1192/2009

¶28

¶29

The case of the accused-petitioners is fully covered in the parameters mentioned above and hence the petition filed by the accused-petitioners deserves acceptance which is hereby accepted. In the interests of justice, it is also hereby ordered that the other accused-persons, namely, West Bengal Transport Complex Pvt. Ltd. and Jai Ma Khatod Carriers are also entitled to the same relief which has been given to the accused-petitioners before us and hence the criminal proceedings pending in the trial court in Criminal Regular Case No. 111/2005 titled as State v. West Bengal Transport Pvt. Ltd. & ors. are hereby quashed in toto. It is also hereby made clear that this order will not affect the civil liabilities of the parties, if any in the matter. A copy of this order be sent to the court below immediately with record of that court.

¶30

( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

¶31

mlt/

Swarn Singh and Anr. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swarn Singh and Anr. v. State and Anr.

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

Laxman Vs State

Baney Khan Vs State

Surender Kumar Vs State

Kishore Kumar Vs Smt.Kalpana and Others

Kishore Kumar Vs Mukesh Kumar and Others

Kishore Kumar Vs Dhan Bharti and Others