The High Court of Rajasthan quashed an FIR alleging cheating for non-refund of a loan. The Court held that the FIR disclosed no entrustment of property and that the dispute was civil in nature, warranting dismissal of the criminal complaint.
The impugned FIR No. 14/2022 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom were quashed.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:19135]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1298/2022
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP Mr. Ram Kumar Swami Mr. Rakesh Swami
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
24/08/2023
Heard the parties.
Petitioners have sought for quashment of FIR No. 14/2022 registered with police station Lakhanpur, Bharatpur for offences under Section 420 and 406 of IPC at the behest of respondent No. 2.
The main ground for challenge is that FIR discloses no offence.
According to FIR, on 31.01.2018 the complainant had provided a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakh) to the petitioner No. 1 on the occasion of marriage of daughter of the deceased brother of the petitioner No.1. Further allegation is that in-spite of
[2023:RJ-JP:19135]
[CRLMP-1298/2022]
(2 of 3)
repetitive demand, the petitioner did not refund the money rather committed abuse and threat alongwith co-petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the FIR discloses no case of entrustment of property, rather it was a loan granted to petitioner No.1. Each and every non-refund of the loan amount, which may be due to financial crunches, the dishonest and fraudulent act, at the inception of taking money cannot be gathered. Moreover, impugned FIR has been lodged in vengeance. FIR No. 1069 dated 06.12.2021 was registered with Bayana police station by the petitioner No.1 against the informant of this case and the impugned FIR was lodged on 09.01.2022 for an incident of 2018.
Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 opposed the prayer for quashing of FIR, on the basis of material narrated in the FIR and contends that the dishonest and fraudulent intention can be gathered from the action of the petitioners in not refunding the money.
Evidently, no case of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation of money is made out on bare perusal of the FIR. The lended money may be recovered through a civil proceeding.
There is no averment that petitioners were fraudulent or dishonest at the inception of entering into an understanding with the respondent to attract the definition of cheating under Section 415 of IPC. Therefore, continuance of all criminal proceedings in pursuance of the impugned FIR would be an abuse of the process of law.
(3 of 3)
[2023:RJ-JP:19135]
[CRLMP-1298/2022]
Hence the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR stands hereby quashed and the petition is allowed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
ashu /836
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an FIR alleging non-refund of a loan amounts to cheating under Section 420 and 406 of IPC without proving dishonest intention at inception.
Whether the dispute admits of a civil remedy alone and not criminal prosecution.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Yadram S/o Late Chabila
Kanhiya S/o Late Bhagwanswaroop
State Of Rajasthan
Samay Singh S/o Mansingh
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
