YOGESH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. and perused the materials on record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature because the accused, as per the prosecution case, had returned Rs. 18 lakhs, out of the Rs. 75 lakhs taken. There could no be criminal prosecution on an agreement to obtain a tender by paying bribe, as the informant himself was guilty of wrong doing, for which he could get no benefit. The basic case of the prosecution of parting of money on the asking of an unknown person is not believable. In fact, no offence under Section 467 I.P.C. was disclosed as there was no such forged tender document in existence.

(3.) IN these circumstances, the contention that no prima case under Section 467 I.P.C. was disclosed cannot be accepted. Also from the mere fact that some amount of money had been returned and thus the case was only of civil nature, for return of the balance amount, was not acceptable. It cannot be ruled out that if once the petitioner felt the pressure of the complainant that criminal proceedings would be initiated against them for taking the money from them on false pretexts, they may have paid off some amount as a preventive action to forestall an F.I.R. against them. Also simply because a party enters into an agreement with another party for doing any unlawful act and, thereafter, the latter party proceeds on the basis of false representations to cheat the party who entered into an unlawful agreement, even if no civil action could lie for enforcing the unlawful contract, in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, but the question still arises whether the party which first entered into an agreement for an unlawful purpose and thereafter extracts money by cheating the second party by making a false representation on the basis of a forged document that the tender had been awarded to the latter party, whether such a party could escape all punishment and the F.I.R. be quashed. Also this Court does not aid a party which approches it with unclean hands, as the relief under Article 226 is an equitable relief. Also at this stage it is only to be seen whether any prima facie case is disclosed and it cannot be said that in the present circumstances no prima facie case is disclosed calling for interference by this Court.