High Court
Facts
12842.2022APPLN.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2842 OF 20221.Arjunsingh Vasudev RajputAge : 25 years, Occ : Service, Juna Bazar, Aurangabad. 2.Vasudev Padmanabh RajputAge : 55 years, Occ : Service, R/o As above 3.Shaikh Amaan Shaikh ShahabAge : 24 years, Occ : Service, R/o Taz Complex, Shahabazaar,Aurangabad. 4.Krushna Arvind DhiwarAge : 24 years, Occ : Business, R/o Narali Baug, Aurangabad. ..APPLICANTS-VERSUS-1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Inspector City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad. 2.Shaikh Sarfaraj Shaikh SalimAge: Major, Occ : Business, R/o Behind Taj Complex, Town Hall, Near Hotel Akbar, Jai-Bhimnagar, Aurangabad3.Siraj Khan Kaisar KhanAge : 37 years, Occ : Driver, R/o H.No.1-21-145, Behind FerozKirana, Town Hall, Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for the applicants : Mr.D.R. Kale Patil h/f Mr.Umesh A.Bhadgaonkar APP for Respondent- State : Mr. N.R. Dayama
Legal Reasoning
62842.2022APPLN.odtrespondent No.2 to applicant No.1.8.Perusal of the F.I.R. indicates that respondent No.2 has notalleged that applicant No.1 had entered into agreement with anintention not to honour his commitments with respect to payment ofrent or with an intent not to return the Car upontermination/expiration of the agreement. The grievance of respondentNo.2 – informant as it appears from the F.I.R. is that applicant No.1 hasnot paid first installment rent in time and thereafter he has committeddefault in making payment of further installments. Further grievancemade in the F.I.R. is that the vehicle was not returned although therewas default in making payment of rent and demand for returning thevehicle was made.9.Having perused the F.I.R., we find that the essentialingredients of the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 ofthe Indian Penal Code are pertinently missing in the F.I.R. Essentialelement of cheating i.e. deception at the very initiation of thetransaction is not alleged. It is not case of respondent No.2 that he hadparted with possession of Car by delivering it to applicant No.1 as aconsequence of deceptive inducement. Such being the case, ingredientsof Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out. It is not 72842.2022APPLN.odtalleged in the F.I.R. that applicant No.1 had taken car on rent with anintention to use the same without making payment of rent and/or notto return the same upon termination of contract or expiration of tenureof contract. The contents of the F.I.R. at best make out a case for failureto pay rental amount in terms of agreement. The statements recordedduring the course of investigation also do not take the case ofrespondent No.2 any further. The transaction between the parties isapparently a civil transaction. The contents of the F.I.R. and otherstatements of prosecution witnesses taken on their face value do notmade out ingredents of Section 415 and as such prosecution underSection 420 of the IPC can not be allowed to continue. We find that thewrong that is failure to make payment of rent for Car hired is a civilwrong at best. The question of criminal prosecution does not arise. Thelearned counsel for the applicants has rightly placed reliance on thejudgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of SarabjitKaur Vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2023) 5 SCC 360and Usha Chakraborty and another Vs. State of West Bengal andanother reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135, which reiterate the settledprinciple that mere failure to keep a promise or honour terms ofcontract would not enough to initiate criminal prosecution for offencepunishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 82842.2022APPLN.odt10.Since, we have held that the case is not made out againstapplicant No.1, who is principal accused, it is obvious that no case ismade out against applicant No.2 who acted merely as broker in thetransaction, applicant No.3 who is father of applicant No.1, who hadmerely confirmed that his son, applicant No.1 was Director of A.K.Padma Kamal Sons Private Limited and applicant No.4, who is abrother of applicant No.1 in whose custody the Car was allegedly keptdespite failure to pay rental installments. There is one more allegationagainst applicant No.3, which pertains to Section 504 of the IPC. Since,it is non-cognizable offence, registration of FIR and continuation ofcriminal prosecution for the said offence can not be permitted tocontinue.11.In the result, we pass the following order :- ORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)F.I.R. No.198/2022 registered with City Chowk Police Station,Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Regular CriminalCase No. 2408/2022 pending on the file of the learned IIIrd JudicialMagistrate, First Class at Aurangabad are hereby quashed againstapplicant No.1 - Arjunsingh Vasudev Rajput, applicant No.2 - Vasudev 92842.2022APPLN.odtPadmanabh Rajput, applicant No.3 - Shaikh Amaan Shaikh Shahab andapplicant No.4 - Krushna Arvind Dhiwar.(iii)The fees of learned Advocate Ms. Tejshree K. Narwade appointedto represent respondent No.2, is quantified at Rs.7,000/- (RupeesSeven Thousand), to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. [ROHIT W. JOSHI][ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] JUDGEJUDGEsga/
Arguments
22842.2022APPLN.odtAdvocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Tejshree K. Narwade (appointed) Advocates for Respondent No.3 : Mr.A.R. Kawade and Mr.G.B. Gaikwad…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ANDROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 2nd JANUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 13th JANUARY, 2025JUDGMENT (PER ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.) :.The applicants have approached this Court invokinginherent jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashment of F.I.R. registered videCrime No.198/2022 with City Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, forthe offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Criminal Case registeredagainst them pursuant to the said F.I.R., being Regular Criminal CaseNo. 2408/2022, which is pending on the file of the learned IIIrdJudicial Magistrate, First Class at Aurangabad. 2.Respondent No.2 – informant has lodged F.I.R. statingthat the applicant No.1 had taken a Car bearing R.T.O. registrationNo.MH-05-AJ-4300 from him on lease on annual rent of Rs.2,64,000/-.He states that this rent was payable in 12 monthly installments ofRs.22,000/- each. The date of agreement is 15.01.2022. Applicant No.2is the broker through whom the rental agreement is fructified. 32842.2022APPLN.odtApplicant Nos.3 and 4 are father and brother respectively of applicantNo.1. The allegation against applicant No.3 is that before entering intothe rental agreement he had made inquires with applicant No.3, whohad stated that there will be no problem in renting out the Car toapplicant No.1. The allegation against applicant No.4 is that afterhaving committed default in payment of car rent, the vehicle was keptwith him.3.As against the principal accused i.e. accused No.1, it isstated in the F.I.R. that applicant No.1 was introduced to respondentNo.2 by the broker, applicant No.2. It was represented that he isDirector of Company, named A.K. Padma Kamal Sons Private Limitedand that the said company needed a Car on rental basis for its office atAurangabad. Respondent No.2 states that after making due inquireswith respect to the office of the said company and also after assurancefrom applicant No.3, he entered into a Car Rental Agreement dated15.01.2022 with applicant No.1. He states that there was a delay inmaking payment of first rental installment of Rs.22,000/-, which waspaid in March, 2022 and thereafter there were persistent defaults inmaking payment of rent. He further alleges that on being asked toreturn the vehicle, applicant No.1 avoided to do so and stated that itwas in custody of applicant No.4. It is also alleged that the father of 42842.2022APPLN.odtapplicant No.1 i.e. applicant No.2 had threatened him that he willfalsely implicate in an offence and put him behind bars since he isworking in D.I.G. office. Respondent No.2 has stated that apart fromthe present matter where applicant No.1 committed defaults in makingpayment of car rent as agreed terms, he has also committed default inpaying rent for another vehicle, being Tata ACE bearing R.T.O.registration No. MH-20-EG-0038.4.Upon registration of the offence, respondent No.1 hasstarted investigation in the matter and has filed charge-sheet, vide FinalReport No.161/2022 on 13.11.2022, pursuant to which RegularCriminal Case No. 2408/2022 came to be registered against theapplicants.5.Learned counsel pointed out from the record that theentire rental arrears were cleared by him and vehicle was also returnedto respondent No.2. He submitted that dispute being a dispute ofpredominantly civil nature, the matter should be given a quietus byquashing the F.I.R. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 did not agreeto this. Since the parties could not agree for disposal of the matter inview of the arrears being cleared and vehicle being returned, we calledupon respective counsel to address us on merits of the matter. 52842.2022APPLN.odt6.We have heard learned Advocate Shri D.R. Kale Patilholding for Advocate Shri Umesh A. Bhadgaonkar for applicants,learned APP Shri N.R. Dayama for respondent-State and learnedAdvocates Shri A.R. Kawade and Shri G.B. Gaikwad for respondentNos.2 and 3 respectively. With the able assistance of the learnedcounsel, we have gone through the contents of the F.I.R., perused thecharge-sheet and documents enclosed therewith along with thestatements of the witnesses.7.Perusal of the charge-sheet will indicate that the allegationagainst applicant No.1 is that having taken the car on rent, applicantNo.1 committed defaults in making payment of car rent as agreed. It isstated in the F.I.R. that the Car was rented for a period of one year forrent of Rs.2,64,000/-. Respondent No.2 has stated that this amount ofRs.2,64,000/- was payable in installment of Rs.22,000/- each. The datefor payment of installment is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Perusal of theagreement dated 15.01.2022 indicates that the annual rent amount ofRs.2,64,000/- was payable in 12 installments of Rs.22,000/- each. It isfurther stated that the agreement could be cancelled by either partiesby giving prior notice of 15-30 days. The tenure of agreement was forone year from 15.01.2022 on which date the vehicle was delivered by