SANJAY CHANDER SHARMA Vs. TAJAMUL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30-10- 2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dooru, Anantnag, in a complaint filed in terms of sec. 190 Cr.PC, for taking cognizance against the accused - petitioner herein, u/s 420, 403, 506 and 507 RPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a complaint before the trial Court, who took cognizance and bailable warrants were issued. The petitioner, inter alia, challenges the proceedings as also order of taking cognizance so taken by the trial Court on the grounds that the order passed by the Court below is bad as it has been passed without perusing the contents of the complaint and statements of the witnesses ; since a plain reading of the complaint would reveal that the ingredients required to establish an offence is not made out, and the order of cognizance passed by the Court below deserves to be quashed. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that even if it is presumed that the contents of the complaint, read with the statements of the witnesses, if taken in its right perspective, even then it is just a civil transaction and the respondent has misused and abused the process of law. Not a single element of offence has been made out by the complainant because in order to establish commission of offence of cheating u/s 420 RPC, the bad intention has to be there right from the beginning of the act/transaction and it has to be pleaded expressly, which is missing in the complaint. The petitioner further pleads in the petition that there is not even a whisper which can show that there was misappropriation of any entrustment committed by the petitioner.

(3.) It has further been pleaded that just for the sake of it, many Sec. of law have been mentioned by the respondent without really showing any offence in the complaint, which could be taken cognizance of. The respondent has himself admitted that there has been a civil transaction between the parties as it is mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner took the amount as sale consideration of the land situated at Ordisha. It has further been stated that the contents of the impugned complaint make it manifestly clear that there has been a civil transaction between the petitioner and the respondent. However, instead of initiating a civil action the respondent has come with a complaint, thus, he has abused and misused the process of law which is not permissible in the eyes of law.