Dismissed

Ibrahim Mohd. S/O Sh. Gafoor Mohd. B/C Muslim v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Oct 2023CRLMP/191/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of proceedings for cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held that the plea relied on disputed facts and disputed evidence, warranting a trial rather than quashing under inherent powers.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings dismissed; application filed.

Ibrahim Mohd. S/O Sh. Gafoor Mohd. B/C Muslim Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:29012]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 191/2019

¶4

Ibrahim Mohd. S/o Sh. Gafoor Mohd. B/c Muslim, R/o Village Somalpur Tehsil And District Ajmer.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶8

Shaikh Muskim S/o Sh. Shaikh Sadurl Ullha, R/o House No.12, Prakash Nagar, Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Tiwari, Adv. For : Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP Respondent(s)

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

12/10/2023

¶14

1- ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&jkexat ftyk&vtesj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k&252@2017 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 406] 420 Hkk-na-la- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA 2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; blh lEifRr dks ysdj flfoy ekeyk yafcr gS] lEifRr dks ca/kd gksuk eku Hkh fy;k tkos rks Hkh cSad ds lkFk Ny gksuk ekuk tk ldrk gS] ifjoknh ds lkFk Ny gksus dk dksbZ

[CRLMP-191/2019]

[2023:RJ-JP:29012]

(2 of 4)

rF; izekf.kr ugha gS vkSj var esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶19

3- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfgj fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] mijksDr vkjksiksa vFkok bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ds laca/k esa vHkh vafre fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk] ;g vuqla/[email protected] dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶20

4- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶21

5- orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ifjoknh }kjk ;g vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr us viuh 2787 oxZxt Hkwfe ikd lkQ rFkk ca/kdeqDr vkfn gksuk crkdj 35]50]000@& :i;s esa ifjoknh dks fodz; djus gq, fnukad 02-10-2014 dks vuqca/k fd;k] tcfd ckn esa cSad deZpkfj;ksa ds ekSds ij vkus ij tkudkjh gqbZ fd mDr Hkwfe dks ca/kd j[krs gq, vfHk;qDr us o"kZ 2001 esa _.k ys j[kk Fkk tks vHkh rd cdk;k gSA fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk izLrqr rF;kRed fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj Hkh vuqla/kku ds nkSjku _.k jkf'k o"kZ 2001 ls cdk;k gksus rFkk bl rF; dks vfHk;qDr }kjk Nqik;k tkuk izdV gqvk gS rFkk bl vk/kkj ij o"kZ 2018 eas gh vkjksi i= vfHk;qDr ds fo:) lacaf/kr U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k tkuk izdV gqvk gSA

¶22

6- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and

[2023:RJ-JP:29012]

(3 of 4)

[CRLMP-191/2019]

Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶27

"7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

¶28

7- blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk (2002) 1 SCC 555 Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶29

"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie discolse the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

¶30

8- mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd vuqla/kku dh LVst ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy, x;s cpko o vU; lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vkfn

¶31

(4 of 4) [CRLMP-191/2019]

¶32

[2023:RJ-JP:29012]

¶33

ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok laf{kIr fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gksa] ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx djus gsrq ntZ djk;h x;h gks] ,slk Li"V ekeyk ugha gS rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vius vki esa vlaHkkO; gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] os vuqla/kku dk fo"k; gks ldrs gSa rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= izLrqr gksrk gS rks cpko lk{; ds le; lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ek= ds vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx la;r rjhds ls o iw.kZ lko/kkuh ds lkFk visf{kr gSA lkekU; :i ls tc rd lqn`< vk/kkj ugha gksa] vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶34

9- mijksDr foospkukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶35

10ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA

¶36

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶37

Mittal /452

Ibrahim Mohd. S/O Sh. Gafoor Mohd. B/C Muslim v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim Mohd. S/O Sh. Gafoor Mohd. B/C Muslim v. State of Rajasthan

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

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Kumar Dabaria S/O Shri Lal Chand Dabaria, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratap Singh S/O Shri Parbat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harphool @ Phoola Ram S/O Late Shri Hemaram, B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Yadav S/O Shri Jile Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Mahaveer Prasad Jain S/O Shri Laddu Lal B/C Mahajan Vs State of Rajasthan