Alok Jain v. Rahul Jain), under Section

Station - North Firozabad, District - Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint making false and baseless allegations. In fact the opposite party no.2 has filed a civil suit in capacity of Secretary of 'Sri Dharmshrut Dharmarth Trust' against applicant and twelve others and that suit has already been dismissed for want of prosecution. There is no documentary proof of the alleged payment made to the applicant. In the impugned complaint, the complainant has not disclosed that he has filed a civil suit against applicant and others. There is long delay in filing of the impugned complaint. Learned counsel has referred case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr (Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.02.2019 and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are clear allegations that on the promise of applicant that he would provide good return at the investment, the complainant has deposited Rs. 45,000/- with applicant in monthly installments. Similarly P.W.-2 examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. has also made similar allegations and invested amount with applicant but neither their amount was returned back nor any interest was paid. It was further submitted that the said civil suit was not filed regarding the dispute of present case, rather said civil suit pertains to the affairs of a Trust and a number of persons were made party in the said civil suit.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

8. In the case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr (supra), in paragraph no.24, The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :- " In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed."

9. In the instant case, the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint alleging that applicant has promised that if complainant would pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month, after six years the applicant would return an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. On that promise the complainant had deposited amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month and total Rs. 45,000/- were deposited but after six years neither principal amount nor interest was paid to him and the said investment plan was closed. The complainant has supported his version in his statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C.. It would be pertinent to mention that the P.W.-2 examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. has also made similar allegations against applicant and he has also invested amount with applicant but his amount was also not returned back. In case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr (supra), it appears that recovery suit was pending regarding disputed amount and considering that fact it was held that no criminal offence was made out, whereas in the instant matter no suit was pending regarding the disputed amount of complainant and witnesses. In fact the civil suit referred by learned counsel for the applicant was filed by the opposite party no.2 in capacity of Secretary of Charitable Trust regarding affairs of that Trust. In that civil suit besides the applicant, twelve other persons were made opposite party. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section - 528 BNSS.

10. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out, hence the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

11. However, it is directed that in case applicant appears / surrenders before the Trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant surrenders before the Trial court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

12. The application under Section - 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Station - North Firozabad, District - Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that no prima facie case is made out against applicant. The opposite party no.2 has lodged the impugned complaint making false and baseless allegations. In fact the opposite party no.2 has filed a civil suit in capacity of Secretary of 'Sri Dharmshrut Dharmarth Trust' against applicant and twelve others and that suit has already been dismissed for want of prosecution. There is no documentary proof of the alleged payment made to the applicant. In the impugned complaint, the complainant has not disclosed that he has filed a civil suit against applicant and others. There is long delay in filing of the impugned complaint. Learned counsel has referred case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr (Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019), decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.02.2019 and submitted that no prima facie case is made out against applicant and thus, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that there are clear allegations that on the promise of applicant that he would provide good return at the investment, the complainant has deposited Rs. 45,000/- with applicant in monthly installments. Similarly P.W.-2 examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. has also made similar allegations and invested amount with applicant but neither their amount was returned back nor any interest was paid. It was further submitted that the said civil suit was not filed regarding the dispute of present case, rather said civil suit pertains to the affairs of a Trust and a number of persons were made party in the said civil suit.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well- settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and material on record even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In well celebrated judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, Supreme Court has carved out certain guidelines, wherein FIR or proceedings may be quashed but cautioned that the power to quash FIR or proceedings should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases.

8. In the case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr (supra), in paragraph no.24, The Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :- " In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed."

9. In the instant case, the opposite party no.2 has lodged impugned complaint alleging that applicant has promised that if complainant would pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month, after six years the applicant would return an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. On that promise the complainant had deposited amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month and total Rs. 45,000/- were deposited but after six years neither principal amount nor interest was paid to him and the said investment plan was closed. The complainant has supported his version in his statement under Section - 200 Cr.P.C.. It would be pertinent to mention that the P.W.-2 examined under Section - 202 Cr.P.C. has also made similar allegations against applicant and he has also invested amount with applicant but his amount was also not returned back. In case of Prof R K Vijayasarathy & Anr (supra), it appears that recovery suit was pending regarding disputed amount and considering that fact it was held that no criminal offence was made out, whereas in the instant matter no suit was pending regarding the disputed amount of complainant and witnesses. In fact the civil suit referred by learned counsel for the applicant was filed by the opposite party no.2 in capacity of Secretary of Charitable Trust regarding affairs of that Trust. In that civil suit besides the applicant, twelve other persons were made opposite party. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants call for determination on questions of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into only by the trial court. Adjudication of questions of facts and appreciation of evidence or examining the reliability and credibility of the version, does not fall within the arena of jurisdiction under Section - 528 BNSS.

10. After considering arguments raised by learned counsel for parties and perusing the impugned complaint and the materials in support of the same, no case for quashing of impugned proceedings is made out, hence the prayer as made above is hereby refused.

11. However, it is directed that in case applicant appears / surrenders before the Trial court concerned within a period of three weeks from today and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law. For a period of three weeks from today or till the applicant surrenders before the Trial court concerned, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

12. The application under Section - 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 S Rawat SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad