Dismissed

Alok Tripathi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2022CRLMP/2788/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR and a warrant of arrest. The Court held that since a charge-sheet was filed after investigation, the allegations had substance, and an inquiry into merits was inappropriate at this stage. Consequently, the petitions were rejected.

What did the court decide?

The petitions for quashing of the FIR and the order of arrest were dismissed.

Alok Tripathi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2788/2012

¶3

Alok Tripathi son of Shri Krishan Kant Tripathi, resident of 143, L.I.G. Avash Vikas Colony, Kalyanpur, Kanpur

¶4

Ashish Kumar Tripathi son of Shri Krishna Kant Tripathi, resident of 143, L.I.G. Avash Vikas Colony, Kalyanpur, Kanpur

¶5

Vishnu Kant Tripathi son of Shri Krishna Kant Tripathi, resident of 143, L.I.G. Avash Vikas Colony, Kalyanpur, Kanpur

¶6

----Accused-Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan

¶9

Deputy Commissioner of Police @ Superintendent of Police (South), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur

¶10

----Non-petitioners

¶11

Mangoo Singh, A.S.I. Police Station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (South), Jaipur

¶12

…...Complainant-non-petitioner AND

¶13

2. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4440/2014

¶14

Shashi Kant son of Uma Kant

¶15

Shiv Kant son of Uma Kant

¶16

Kusuma Devi D/o Shri Shyamsunder

¶17

Smt. Rekah Tripathi D/o Krishan Kant Tripathi All residents of 151, Bhawantpur Choubeypur, Kanpur (U.P.)

¶18

----Accused-Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

State of Rajasthan

¶21

Mangu Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur (West)

¶22

----Complainant-non-respondent

¶23

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Savita Nathawat, Advocate for
	Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Meena, Public Prosecutor

¶24

(2 of 7)

¶25

[CRLMP- 2788/2012]

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶27

Order

¶28

Date of Order :::: 5^th July, 2022

¶29

¶30

Aforementioned two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioners for quashing of impugned F.I.R. bearing No.211/2011 registered at Police Station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Act of 1978’).

¶31

In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4440/2014, it is further prayed that the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, by which warrants of arrest were issued under Section 37 of the Police Act, in Case No.170/2012, may also be quashed and set aside.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has submitted that the petitioners’ company approached this Court through Shashin Srivastava, A.G.M. (Operations) by way of filing a petition bearing No.77/2012 and the Court vide its order dated 09.01.2012 disposed of that petition. After that, the company had submitted a representation (Annexure-1) but inspite that, the respondents have kept the investigation pending under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioners and all of their accounts have been seized. In these circumstances, registration of F.I.R. against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law. It has further been submitted that no material has been produced to show that the company was dealing with the money circulation scheme. It has also been submitted that from the

¶33

(3 of 7)

¶34

[CRLMP- 2788/2012]

¶35

Certificate and memorandum (Annexure-2), it is clear that the company is not involved in any money circulation scheme, as mentioned in agreement of plot booking (Annexure-3) also.

¶36

It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners that the agreement (Annexure-3) clearly indicate that the company had practice of taking money in installment and after deposit of all the installments, the applicant would be entitled to get plot. It has further been contended that there must be some money circulation scheme offered by the company to its applicant/ member, whereas no such offer has been made by the company and the company has not been formed any such scheme, as is clear from the agreement (Annexure-3). It has also been contended that there is not a single witness, who has made any statement against the company about the promise, which has falsely been made by the company.

¶37

It has been argued by learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners that few days before lodging of F.I.R., the company had purchased the land, which clearly indicates that in the light of the main object of the company, the company was working for allotment of the plots. It has further been argued that if any person is having any grievance against the company then he has a right to approach the company. It has also been argued that the Police has added Section 420 of I.P.C. later-on to show the gravity of offence inspite of the fact that no offence has been committed under Section 420 of I.P.C. Lastly, it is prayed that the present petitions may be allowed and the impugned F.I.R. be quashed and set aside.

¶38

In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4440/2014 , it has been further prayed by learned counsel appearing for the accusedpetitioners, that there is no specific allegation against any of the petitioners for doing any act relating to commission of alleged offences. It has further been prayed that the filing of the charge-sheet under

¶39

(4 of 7)

¶40

[CRLMP- 2788/2012]

¶41

Section 299 of Cr.P.C. and issuing warrant of arrest under Section 37 of the Police Act amount to abuse of process of law. Lastly, it is prayed that the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur, in Case No.170/2012 (Annexure-4) issuing warrant of arrest under Section 37 of the Police Act, may also be quashed and set aside.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has

¶43

placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

¶44

“(i) Srinivasa Enterprises, represented by the Managing Partner, Peddi Venkateswarlu and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), represented by Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs and Others, AIR 1981 SC 504;

¶45

(ii) Reserve Bank of India Vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Limited and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1023;

¶46

(iii) Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Secured Investment Company and Others, AIR 1988 SC 492;

¶47

(iv) Amway India Enterprises and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, A.P. H.C. 2007 (4) ALT 808;

¶48

(v) State of W.B. and Others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha and Others & State of W.B. and Others Vs.Sanchaita Investments and Others, AIR 1982 SC 949.”

¶49

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the State, has submitted the factual report with regard to aforesaid F.I.R. bearing No.211/2011, which is taken on record.

¶50

It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that in the aforesaid F.I.R., after investigation, the chargesheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of 1978 against all the petitioners has already been submitted on 24.04.2013. Hence, both the petitions may kindly be rejected.

¶51

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as the material made available on record.

¶52

As per factual report submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State, in the aforesaid F.I.R. bearing No.211/2011,

¶53

(5 of 7)

¶54

[CRLMP- 2788/2012]

¶55

the charge-sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act of1978 has already been submitted on 24.04.2013.

¶56

From perusal of impugned F.I.R. as well as charge-sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that no cognizable offence has been committed. The allegations in the complaint and charge-sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence alleged.

¶57

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana &

¶58

Ors. Vs. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash F.I.R. and criminal proceedings.

¶59

In another case of N. Soundaram Vs. P.K. Pounraj & Anr. : (2014) 10 SCC 616, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the principles laid down in Choudhary Bhajan Lal ( supra ) on the scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., observed as under :-

¶60

"It is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the power under Section 482 CrPC has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and to secure the ends of justice [See State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal]. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. Taking the allegations and the complaint as they were, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence was made out, only then the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings in the exercise of its power under Section 482, CrPC. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. [See Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora] (2013) 10 SCC 581.”

¶61

In the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

¶62

Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 CRILJ 2419, Hon’ble Apex Court, on scope of exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in Para 23 (xii) & (xv) observed as under :-

¶63

“xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in

¶64

(6 of 7)

¶65

[CRLMP- 2788/2012]

¶66

progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

¶67

(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or not. The Court is not required to consider on merits whether the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”

¶68

In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, the criminal proceedings can only be quashed where the F.I.R. or the Police report do not constitute any offence, whereas in the present case, as indicated above, the Police after collecting necessary evidence during the course of investigation, has filed charge-sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. and on perusal thereof, it cannot be said that the same has been filed without any basis or no case is made out against the petitioners.

¶69

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has raised many grounds, on merits to show their innocence, but it is not appropriate to minutely examine the material on record and comment on the merits of the case. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the learned trial Court at appropriate stage, which are to be considered in accordance with law.

¶70

The legal position expounded in the judgments cited hereinabove by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners is not disputed at all, however, they do not come to help the case of the present petitioners at this stage.

¶71

In the facts and circumstances of the case so also in the light of the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, no case

¶72

(7 of 7)

¶73

[CRLMP- 2788/2012]

¶74

for quashing of impugned F.I.R. bearing No.211/2011 registered at Police Station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 1978 and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and criminal proceeding is made out in both the petitions. Further prayer in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4440/2014 for quashing and setting aside the order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Case No.170/2012, issuing warrant of arrest under Section 37 of the Police Act, is not tenable, as the chargesheet has already been presented under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. against them.

¶75

In view of above, this Court does not find any ground for quashing of impugned F.I.R. bearing No.211/2011 registered at Police Station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur Metropolitan (South) for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Act of 1978 and under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, criminal proceedings and impugned order dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Case No.170/2012.

¶76

Consequently, both the petitions stand dismissed.

¶77

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶78

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J.

¶79

ASHOK/51-52

Alok Tripathi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alok Tripathi and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 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

Manroop Singh S/O Shri Malaram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Inox Wind Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Rafiq S/O Deenu Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Parmeshwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Tata Capital Ltd, Kota, Rajasthan Vs State of Raj Asthan and Anr.

Ramesh Chand Vs Ravi Kant Tiwari and Ors.