Md. Amin Ansari ……… v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Faruk
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 636 of 2014 Md. Amin Ansari ………..Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Md. Faruk ………..Opp. Parties CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nishant Kr. Roy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Zaid Ahmed, Advocate ………. 05/ 08.08.2023: Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 03.06.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No. 338 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad. 2. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and accused were close friends and distant relative. The accused took friendly loan of Rs. 3,78, 000/- from the complainant at the time of his need, which was paid on several/ various dates without preparing any written paper. The accused agreed to repay the loan amount within two months but he failed to return the same. It was further stated in the complaint petition that out of loan amount of Rs. 3, 78,000/- accused returned/ repaid a sum of Rs. 1,40, 000/- to the complainant at the time of execution of agreement and it has been stipulated in the agreement that accused will return/ repay the rest loan amount i.e, Rs. 2,38,000/- in between 19.4.2012 to 15.12.2012 but he failed to return the rest amount even after expiry of eight months. 2 It was further stipulated in para-5 of the agreement that desired accused and showed his inability to repay/ return the loan amount then he assured that he would transfer his landed property situated at Govindpur, Upper Bazaar in favour of the complainant but he started avoiding to do so. Thereafter the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 Sent a legal notice on dated 4.1.2013 to the accused but he refused to receive the same then again a legal notice on 17.1.2013 was sent to the accused through courier service demanding payment of rest loan amount within 10 days, but no reply to the same was made. It was further alleged that the accused was working as a LIC agent at Dhanbad LIC Branch and due to bad character he was terminated by LIC Office. On 1.2.2012, complainant/ opposite party No. 2 paid a cash of Rs. 78,000/- to the accused for purchasing of LIC Policy and for that the accused issued/ gave a cheque bearing No. 002681 dated 8.2.2012 of Bank of India, Jharia Branch in favour of the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 and on demand of policy certificate he avoided. Thereafter complainant/ opposite party No. 2 presented aforesaid cheque dated 8.2.2012 for encashment but the same stood dishonoured by accused Banker due to insufficient fund in his account. When the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 informed him he was abused with filthy languages and threatened to implicate him a false case by the accused. It was further stated that at the instigation of accused, complainant/opposite party No. 2 purchased LIC policy i.e. Wealth Plus Scheme Policy on dated 29.4.2010 for Rs. 90,000/- which would attain maturity on 29.4.2018, but when the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 went to LIC office to verify the same he found the said certificate of LIC policy was forged. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present complaint has been filed by complainant. 3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner 3 submits that the petitioner is a LIC agent and in the complaint petition it has been alleged that a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/- was taken by this petitioner on loan however it has been further disclosed in the said complaint that a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been refunded and rest amount was alleged to be returned later on. He submits that allegation with regard to policy is false in view of the fact that annexure-2 is document which suggests that the policy was issued in favour of O.P. No.2. He submits that with regard to para no. 10 even the policy number has not been disclosed by the O.P. No.2. He submits that for a civil wrong criminal case has been lodged. 4. Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that there are allegations of cheating and forging the policy document and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. 5. Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance pursuant to the complaint petition. 6. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that complaint case has been filed alleging therein that a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/- has been taken loan by the petitioner and further in para 4 of the complaint petition it has been disclosed that a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- has been returned. In view of that intention of cheating from the very beginning is not made out in view of section 415 of I.P.C. Further Annexure-2 is a document which suggests that the policy in question was issued in favour of the O.P. No.2. With regard to statement made in para 10 of the complaint petition of forging of policy even the O.P. No.2 has not disclosed the number of the policy which has been forged by the petitioner. 7. In view of above facts, it appears that for a civil wrong the complaint case has been filed for recovery of certain amount. Any 4 deficiency detected post-purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the Consumer Fora . Reference may be made to the case of “Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise,” (2023) 3 SCC 195 wherein para 16 it has been held as under:- “16. We have failed to comprehend as to what NCDRC meant when it observed that the appellants “ought to have known what they were purchasing”. More often than not, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora under the CP Act is invoked post-purchase. If complaints were to be spurned on the specious ground that the consumers knew what they were purchasing, the object and purpose of the enactment would be defeated. Any deficiency detected post-purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the Consumer Fora. The reasoning of NCDRC is, thus, indefensible. Indeed, the appellants had purchased their respective flats on payment of consideration amounts as per market rate and there was due execution and registration of the deeds of conveyance preceded by agreements for sale and these instruments did indicate, inter alia, what formed part of the common facilities/amenities; however, the matter obviously could not have ended there. Whether the appellants had been provided what the respondents had promised did survive for consideration, which does not get reflected in the impugned order [Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 429] “. 8. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 03.06.2013 in connection with C.P. Case No. 338 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhanbad is quashed.
Decision
9. This petition allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. 10. It is made clear that if any civil dispute is there that will be decided without being prejudice by this order. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) satyarthi/