AJIT KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of order and charge sheet dated 4.9.2012 Annexure P -3 and P -4, respectively, made by the trial court and order dated 14.1.2013 (Annexure P -6) by which the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the additional Sessions Judge, Patiala.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners would contend that the instant case has been registered on the complainant made by Ranjit Singh. As per allegations, Joginder Singh, father of Ranjit Singh, had given an amount of Rs. 8,90,000/ - to the petitioners in the presence of owners of M/s Guru Nanak Trading Company, Samana, District Patiala on 1.4.2004. The petitioners statedly failed to repay the principal amount as well as interest.

(3.) ON completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code (Annexure P -2) was submitted in the trial court. The trial court framed charge against the petitioners on 4.9.2012 for offence under Section 406 read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"). The petitioners filed a revision petition against order dated 4.9.2012 passed by the trial Court which was dismissed by the Court in revision vide impugned order dated 14.1.2013. It is argued with vehemence that mere refusal to pay the amount allegedly borrowed by a person would not constitute offence under Section 406 IPC. It is further argued that as per allegations, the alleged loan was given in April 2004 but criminal proceedings have been initiated after a period of seven years in September 2011 thus, being barred in view of provisions of Section 468 of the Code. It is submitted that dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute and the same has been given colour of a criminal case knowing fully well that the claim of the complainant for recovery of the said amount is barred by limitation.