JAVED PARVEJ @ AARIF, Vs. SHABNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the complaint filed by respondent No.1 herein, offences under Sections 420 & 120B of the IPC have been registered against the petitioners and charges were framed by the trial Magistrate on 10-4- 2015 against which the petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No.79/2015 which was allowed by the revisional Court by order dated 13-7-2015 and the order dated 10-4-2015 was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication and to pass order under Sections 245(1) & 246(1) of the CrPC. This time, again, by a detailed order, the trial Magistrate passed order and framed charges against the petitioners under Sections 420 & 120B of the IPC against which the petitioners have preferred revision and that has also been dismissed against which this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the instant dispute is purely a civil dispute between the parties and no criminal case is made out against the petitioners for registration of aforesaid offences. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others (2007) 12 SCC 1, Chandran Ratnaswami v. K.C. Palanisamy and others (2013) 6 SCC 740 and M. Suresh v. State of A.P . Laws (SC) 2016 7 103 to buttress his submissions.

(3.) Mr. G.M. Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the complainant / respondent No.1, submits that charges have rightly been framed against the petitioners. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal Laws (SC) 1995 1 75, the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Pulgaon Cotton Mills Ltd., Pulgaon v. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Army and Navy Building, Bombay Laws (Bom) 2000 9 74 and that of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Kondlapudi Malla Reddy v. Pullamreddy Balarama Reddy Laws (APH) 1996 9 80 to buttress his submissions.