Criminal Petition filed by the accused to quash an FIR registered for Section 420 IPC. The court found the underlying dispute to be purely civil in nature involving a financial disagreement without commission of a cognizable offence.
FIR No.163 of 2016 registered for Section 420 IPC was quashed and the Criminal Petition was allowed.
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.
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.66 of 2017
ORDER:
None appeared for respondents 1 and 2. Though respondent No.3 was served, there is no representation on his behalf.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This petition is filed by the accused seeking to quash FIR.No.163 of 2016 registered on the file of respondent No.2 Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
As per the First Information Report, Respondent No.3 lodged a report, dated 25.09.2016, against the petitioner/accused stating that on 24.07.2014, himself and the accused entered into an agreement to run a function hall, which was named as “Taj Palace Function Hall” and thereby, the accused has taken an amount of Rs.32,00,000/- from him towards 10% share and also Rs.2,00,000/- in November, 2014, and that the accused has not even shown the accounts, and gave due profit accrued by running the function hall.
Dr. SA, J Crl.P.No.66 of 2017
2
As per the records, the dispute between the parties is civil
in nature. There is no commission of cognizable offence.
Under those circumstances, FIR.No.163 of 2016 registered
on the file of respondent No.2 against the petitioner is quashed.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
____________________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
6th OCTOBER, 2017.
kvni
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No.163 of 2016 alleged against the accused for cheating should be quashed.
Whether the underlying dispute if it is civil in nature warrants quashing of the FIR.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
RNDT 1
RNDT 2
RNDT 3
SHAMEEM AKTHER
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
