SHYAM SUNDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Shyam Sunder and his three sons for quashment of FIR No. 35 dated April 8, 1996 registered at Police Station Ropar (copy annexure P-6) under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and all the proceedings relating thereto, arising therefrom or in connection therewith, inter alia, on the grounds that petitioner No. 1 is a petty shop-keeper carrying on 'Karyana' business in Sector 20-D, Chandigarh and petitioners No. 2 to 4 are his sons; respondent No. 3 is working as financier and advances loans on interest. He was friendly with petitioner No. 1. On the basis of friendship - petitioner No. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs on December 13, 1994 agreeing to pay it back after a short period without interest. Due to circumstances, the petitioner could not return the loan as promised. He, however, returned the loan subsequently in two instalments. The last payment was made through cheque dated April 12, 1995. Respondent No. 3 issued a receipt of Rs. 56,000/- (copy annexure P-1) expressly stating therein that the amount has been received in full and final settlement. That amount was debited in his account (a copy of the relevant Bank account is annexure P-2). It is further alleged that the amount was advanced to the petitioner No. 1 as a loan and that factual position has been recited in the legal notice, issued to petitioner No. 1 by respondent No. 3 (copy of the legal notice is annexure P-3). It is further pleaded that on a second thought, however, respondent No. 3 demanded interest at a high rate, but petitioner No. 1 did not agree to the same on the ground that the amount was repaid to him in full and final settlement of his claim.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 made a complaint to Chandigarh Police alleging an offence of cheating against the petitioner and his sons. That complaint was enquired into by the Chandigarh Police, Economic Wing, and after a deep probe, it was found that the matter was of civil nature and no action on criminal side was called for. The report is Annexure P-4. Thereafter, respondent No. 3, without disclosing that he had already filed a complaint with the Chandigarh Police, approached the police at Ropar with the same complaint for the same purpose (copy anneure P-5). It is alleged that respondent No. 3 is a rich person doing business of financing, who obliges the officers in various ways. He influenced the Ropar police and got the case registered. The petitioner, anticipating trouble, at their hand applied for pre-arrest bail vide an application (copy annexure P-7), but the said petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated November 6, 1995. Encouraged with the order dated November 6, 1995, the Ropar police sought permission to register a case with a prayer for modification of the order dated November 6, 1995. That application, however, was dismissed vide order dated February 12, 1996. After decision of the case against the petitioners, the petitioners were arrested by the Ropar police. They were tortured in many ways to recover from him, the original receipt, annexure P-1 and the legal notice, annexure P-3, which indicated that the dispute was of purely civil nature, and that no cheating was involved. It is further alleged that the premises of the petitioner were raided and ransacked, but petitioner No. 1 did not produce the documents, sought to be recovered from him. Ultimately, the petitioners were sent to the judicial lock-up. However, they were released on bail after 18 days.

(3.) THE petitioners have filed replication controverting the pleas taken by the respondent and reasserted their stand.