LAWS(J&K)-1992-3-24

PARKASH CHAND Vs. STATE

Decided On March 31, 1992
PARKASH CHAND Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to invoke the powers of this Court as envisaged under Section 561 -A Cr, P.C, of 1989, this petition for quashning the proceeding pending disposal in the court of learned Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate First Class), Jammu, entitled: State V/S Parkash Chand bearing FIR No: 42 of 1985, has been moved by the petitioner Parkash Chand "here -in -after referred to as the accused" on the ground that he was the sole proprietor of a finance company known as Uppal Finance Corporation, and had some dealings with the customers including the complainant in the challan. He started his finance business in the year 1979 -80 which flourished initially, but, later on, some people did not repay the money to him, and his finance company came to a closure. He made his best efforts as a businessman to clear the arrears of different customers, but, unfortunately, some of the customers became impatient and they tried to kill him. He left Jammu, leaving behind all his assets and became a hermit and started roaming countrywide and was unconcerned with the wordly affairs. He was afterwards traced out by his family members after a great search and he returned to Jammu, and, on his arrived in Jammu, a complaint was lodged U/S 420 in the court of learned Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. According to him, the complaint is mis -conceived, merely for the reason that it was filed after three years of the cause of action. If any cause of action accrued to the complainant that was in the year, 1982 -83, but the complaint was filed in the year, 1985. The complaint has been filed only to cause mental torture and induce him to make the payments, as claimed for. According to him, he does not want to comment on the merits of the case, for the complainant has already filed various suits in the court, which are being contested.

(2.) THAT the FIR consists of many complaints, and, at a time, one complaint can be filed, and In the series of acts so connected, only three offences can be bracketed together for joint trial of an accused. As the civil remedy has already been availed of by the complainant, therefore, no criminal action would lie against the accused. It is further contended that the offence U/S 420 and 406 RPC are different in nature, and cannot be tried together. It was, therefore, appropriate that the above mentioned complaint is quashed,

(3.) HEARD learned counsel Mr. P. Kohli for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Gandhi, AAG on behalf of the respondent/State; also bestowed my thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.