ARUN BHANDARI v. STATE OF U.P & Ors.

#2. In the present case, neither the FIR nor the protest petition was ma/a fide, frivolous or vexatious. It is also not F a case where there is no substance in the complaint. The manner in which the investigation was conducted by the officer who eventually filed the final report and the transfer of the investigation earlier to another officer who had almost completed the investigation and the entire G case diary which has been adverted to in detail in the protest petition prima facie makes out a case against the husband and the wife regarding collusion and the intention to cheat from the very beginning, inducing him to hand over a huge sum of money to both of them. Their H 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R. A conduct of not stating so many aspects, namely, the Power of Attorney executed by the original owner, the will and also the sale effected by the wife in the name of 'M' on 28.7.2008 cannot be brushed aside at this stage. [Para 31] [985-E-H; 986-A] B

#3. Some times a case may apparently look to be of civil nature or may involve a commercial transaction but such civil disputes or commercial disputes in certain circumstances may also contain ingredients of criminal offences and such disputes have to be entertained C notwithstanding they are also civil disputes. The present case falls in the category which cannot be stated at this stage to be purely civil in nature on the basis of the admitted documents or the allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation or for that D matter what has been stated in the protest petition. Prima facie there is allegation that there was a guilty intention to induce the complainant to part with money. It is not a case where a promise initially made could not be lived up to subsequently. It is not a case where it could be said that even if the allegations in entirety are accepted, no case is made out. [Paras 24 and 27] [981-A-B; 983-A-C] E Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 751; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) F 3 sec 259: 1999 (1) SCR 1012 - relied on. All Cargo Movers (/) Pvt. Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 247: 2007 (11) SCR 271 - referred to. G

#4. Therefore, the High Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction, had not proceeded on the sound principles of law for quashment of order taking cognizance. The High Court has been guided by the non existence of privity of contract and without appreciating H the factual scenario has observed that the wife was ARUN BHANDARI v. STATE OF U.P. 965 merely present. When the wife had the Power of Attorney A in her favour and was aware of execution of the will, had accepted the money along with her husband from the complainant, it is extremely difficult to say that an innocent person is dragged to face a vexatious litigation or humiliation. The entire conduct of the respondent Nos. B 2 and 3 would show that a prima facie case is made out and allegations are there on record in this regard that they had the intention to cheat from the stage of negotiation. [Para 31] [986-A-D] Hridya Rajan Pd. Verma and Ors. v. State of Bihar and C