PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging legality and validity of FIR No. 22 dated 19.01.2020 registered at Police Station-Kumhari District- Durg (C.G.) against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 384 of I.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were well known to each other and they had good relations. On 30.09.2019, the complainant had taken loan from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- and also executed an agreement regarding repayment of aforesaid loan. The petitioner demanded back his money, but the complainant was not in a position to repay the amount as such, the complainant made false story and filed a false complaint at Police Station- Kumhari, District-Durg. Hence, this writ petition is filed to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that contents of FIR reflect that the FIR is lodged against unknown person. On 30.12.2019, a traffic police in name of parking the motor cycle in wrong side, has taken a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant through Google Pay on mid night. The mobile number, which has been mentioned, is mobile number of the petitioner. He would further submit that police of Police Station- Kumhari is harassing the petitioner to arrest him in the matter and witness to the agreement has also mentioned that the complainant has taken loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the petitioner and has developed false story. He would further submit that the FIR has been lodged after lapse of 19 days. He has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others , 2014 2 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held that the preliminary enqiury especially in commercial cases is mandatory and that too when there is no satisfactory explanation for lodging delayed FIR. Neither preliminary enquiry has been done nor explanation in delay of registration of FIR has been given, therefore, the FIR, prima facie, abuse of process of law, which is liable to be quashed.