RAJ KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') prays for quashing of FIR No. 74 dated 11.7.2003 registered under Sections 420/406/467/468/471 IPC P.S. City Fazika, District Ferozepur.

(2.) THE FIR has been registered on the basis of allegations levelled by one Rajinder Kumar (complainant-respondent No. 2) son of Saheb Ram against various persons namely 1. Krishan Lal 2. Kewal Krishan sons of Sada Lal resident of Krishna Gali, Fazilka, Gaushala Road 3. Raj Kumar son of Sada Lal, Gali Tanalian Wali, Fazika, Distt. Ferozepur, 4. Rakesh Kumar, 5. Surinder Kumar son of Krishan Lal resident of Gaushala Road, Krishna Gali near OBC Bank, Fazilka 6. Ricky son of Darshan Lal resident of Shop No. 120 New Anaz Mandi, Muktsar and 7. Sandeep Kumar son of Om Parkash Juneja, resident of near old Post Office, Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh. It is alleged that they have prepared fake record relating to original payments and they have failed to pay bonus in respect of paddy to the complainant-respondent No. 2. Allegations further are that complainant-respondent No. 2 is an agriculturist and has been selling his crop to the firm M/s Krishan Lal Rajinder Pal, of which accused Nos. 1 and 3 are partners. The accused have been arrayed in the FIR as accused Nos. 1 to 7. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 (petitioners) are partners. The accused Nos. 4 and 5 are sons of accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 6 and 7 are his relatives. All the accused are alleged to be share holders in the firm. It is alleged that on account of good relations of the complainant- respondent No. 2 with the accused persons he never suspected the intention of the accused including the petitioners. He had been keeping his sale proceeds with the accused persons and would take the amount as and when he needed the same. It is alleged that on 1.5.2003 the complainant-respondent No. 2 asked accused No. 1 Krishan Lal to prepare his accounts and render the same to him. A sum of Rs. 7,62,100/- was lying to the credit of complainant-respondent No. 2 and the same was payable. The complainant got suspicious as the credit shown in his account was far less than his estimation. He demanded form J in respect of the sale of the crop and the accused supplied to him the photostat copies. The photostat of copy of J Form No. 77 dated 19.10.2002 showed sale proceeds of Rs. 19,822/- which infact was never signed by the complainant- respondent No. 2. It is alleged that accused No. 1, Krishan Lal has signed the same by impersonating himself as complainant-respondent No. 2. The photo copy of form J was sent with the complaint. Similarly form J No. 78 dated 23.10.2002; form No. 92 dated 28.10.2002 and J form No. 323 dated 21.4.2003 which have also been issued by the accused to complainant-respondent No. 2 did not show the full quantity of the paddy crop sold by complainant-respondent No. 2 to the accused. The accused are alleged to have told the complainant- respondent No. 2 that the entire paddy has been sold by them to the sheller owners by back door entry and the amount would be paid to the complainant- respondent No. 2 separately. In other words the sale proceeds of paddy sold by the complainant-respondent No. 2 has not been credited to his account. The amount has not been paid either. The allegation of cheating has been levelled.

(3.) SHRI R.C. Setia, learned senior counsel has argued that a perusal of the FIR shows no criminal breach of trust or forgery of the account books. Learned counsel has submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature and it is mis-use of the process of criminal law. According to the learned counsel, the necessary ingredients of criminal breach of trust or forgery have not been prima facie established on the perusal of the FIR. Therefore, the learned counsel has prayed for quashing the FIR.