JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-accused has been praying for the quashing of F.I.R. No.283/95 of Police Station Kashmere Gate, Delhi for the offences under Sections 420/120-B Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code").

(2.) The complainant-ISBT on 9.5.1995 Filed a complaint for the offences under Section 420/120-B Indian Penal Code against Jagdish Chander son of Puran Chand (present petitioner) alleging that the parking sites of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi were lice-need to the accused as per the terms and conditions of the agreement whereunder the parking charges permitted to be charged were 50 paise per entry of cycle or RS.10.00 per month, for scooter or motor cycle Rs.2.00 per entry or Rs.45.00 per month, for cars Rs.4.00 per entry or Rs.l20.00 per month and for helmet 50 paise per entry; that number of complaints against the accused were received from the public for over-charging of the parking rates; that the team of ISBT Officials during inquiry into the allegations made by the public, confiscated parking slips from one Suresh Kumar, an employee of accused Jagdish Chander. The rates printed on these parking slips were higher than the specified rates of licence/agreement; that the statement of said Suresh Kumar was recorded, which revealed that the rates charged were on the instructions of accused Jagdish Chander, licencee of the parking sites. Accused is, thus, alleged to have committed cognizable offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code . for cheating the public by over charging the rates.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr.Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution for the offences under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is not maintainable and the prosecution is malaFide; that the notice dated 28.2.1994 is prior in point of time to the present complaint and that is the reason why the complaint has been filed. By the said notice the petitioner called upon the complainant to get the site vacated from R.K.Carriers and the coolies (porters) and to restore the possession of the same to the petitioner and also to open all four gates so that public could have a free access from all gates to come and go for parking their vehicles in the public parking place; that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant for filing complaint for the offence under Section 420 IPC; that the remedy is by way of civil suit for the alleged breach of the terms of the agreement; that the licence in favour of the petitioner is already terminated as the consequence of the alleged breach of the terms of the agreement; that the ingredients of Section 415 and 420 Indian Penal Code are not attracted; that it is not the case of the complainant that the complainant is cheated by the petitioner. As against this, it is submitted by Mr.H.J.S.Ahluwalia, learned APP for the State that the provisions of Section 418 Indian Penal Code are clearly attracted; that the petitioner is found collecting parking charges more than the rates fixed with the petitioner in the agreement/licence; that number of complaints have been received against the petitioner alleging over-charging of the parking rates.