Skip to main content

If allegations involve both civil and criminal dispute then criminal proceedings cannot be quashed

In Harimohan Pawaiya v. State of M.P. & Anr., the matter before the Hon'ble MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT GWALIOR BENCH, was that an FIR was lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 on 28.02.2010 alleging therein that the applicant is engaged in the business of sale of second hand vehicles. The complainant had agreed to purchase two old Maruti 800 cars and, therefore, he had given Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant. The applicant had given the original papers of the said cars but the delivery of the vehicles was not given on the ground that some repairing works are still required to be done. However, even after passing of about 2 years neither the applicant has refunded the amount nor has given the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars.

On the application of the applicant, the matter was also inquired into by the CSP Jhansi Road, District Gwalior. The CSP by its report dated 15.06.2010 held that although the complainant has stated that he had paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the applicant but he has not produced any documents in support of that contention. On the contrary, a receipt of Rs.50,000/- has been issued by the applicant. It was further opined that on the basis of the documents available on record, it is not proved that the applicant has been given an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. In the light of the inquiry report submitted by the CSP, Jhansi Road, Gwalior, it appears that the police filed the closure report. The respondent after coming to know about filing of the closure report filed an application under Section 156 (3) of CrPC and objected to the closure report filed by the police. The Magistrate by considering the complaint as well as the documents furnished with the closure report rejected the closure report filed by the police and took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.05.2012, the applicant filed a criminal revision which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 24.01.2013. Hence, this petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 482 of CrPC.

The Hon'ble High Court referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012), held that if the facts merely discloses the breach of contract or civil dispute then the complainant cannot be permitted to give a colour of criminal offence but where the allegations involve the civil as well as the criminal dispute then the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the case is of civil in nature. If the allegations as made in the FIR are considered on their face value then it would be clear that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the applicant and the original papers of two old Maruti 800 cars were also handed over to the respondent No.2 by the applicant. It is specifically mentioned in the FIR that the delivery of the vehicles could not be given because of some technical snag. It is further mentioned that the applicant is neither giving the delivery of the vehicle nor is returning the money.

10. Whether, it is a mere breach of contract or whether there was a mere failure on the part of the applicant to keep his promise is a question, which is to be decided at the Trial. If for one reason or another the applicant was not in a position to give the delivery of two old Maruti 800 cars to the respondent No.2 then he could have refunded the amount so collected by him from the respondent No.2.

11. So far as the report of the CSP as well as the closure report filed by the police are concerned, suffice it to say that the same are not binding upon the Magistrate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more