RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surmukh Singh and Harbans Singh, residents of village Mundho Mastana made a report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana that they had invested a sum of Rs. 39,000/- with as many as six persons/concerns named in their complaint and that by now neither any partner of the firm nor any agent is available and the office has also been closed and this complaint was entrusted to Shri Hardyal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagraon. As a consequence of his preliminary inquiry, First Information Report No. 63 was registered on 18-7-1984 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and. Sections 4/5 Prize and Chit Fund (Barring) Act, 1978.

(2.) Ranjit Singh and Avtar Singh, residents of District Ludhiana and Harnek Singh, resident of District Patiala, the three accused, have challenged the registration of the aforesaid case and sought that the aforesaid F.I.R. should be quashed because at any rate the business of the petitioners did not depend upon any chance and the amount deposited would be doubled after taking into consideration the amount of interest admissible. It has also been alleged that they had been making payments to the depositors regularly till the police intervened and locked their premises. It was specifically alleged that it is a civil matter and no cognizable offence has been committed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to State of West Bengal and Others v. Swapan Kumar Gaha and Others, and has rightly stressed that none of the requirements of a money circulation scheme is satisfied in the instant case. In this authority it has been observed that numerous persons lend their hard-earned monies in the hope of earning high returns. It is notorious that, eventually, quite a few of them lose both the principal and the interest, for no project can succeed against the basic laws of economics. The alleged payment of Rs. 39,000/- referred to in para No.2 of the petition was in fact a kind of deposit. The allegations made in the complaint do not meet requirement of Section 2(c) of the Act. Besides this attention has been invited to Daramvir and Others v. State of Punjab where also it was observed that receiving investment in a kind of Double Money Saving Scheme, may not amount to misappropriation. In case of breach, a civil remedy shall be available. Other authorities referred to in this regard are Hakam Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another and Ashok Kalia and Another v. State of Punjab, where questions of limitation were also involved. Any authority to the contrary has not been cited here by learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. The conclusion is that the petition is accepted and the F.I.R. in question is quashed without prejudice to the civil remedies. Petition accepted.