VIVEK GARG AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By This misc. petition, the petitioners (accused) has prayed for quashing FIR No. 273/2000 dated 7/6/2000 registered at P.S. Lalsot Distt. Dausa for offences under Sections 420, 421 and 120B Penal Code on the basis of criminal complaint lodged by complainant Shri Ramesh Chand before the learned judicial Magistrate Lalsot who sent the aforesaid complaint for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Cr. PC. In the complaint it was inter alia alleged that accused petitioner No. 2 (Vijay Kumar) had entered into a contract to work out construction of PHC in village Daulatpura, thereby he got labour work done through complainant for aforesaid construction which was completed but the petitioners withheld payment of Rs. 48,000.00 due towards labour charges and despite persistent reminders and notice, they did not pay the said amount, and ultimately the petitioner No. 2 executed a note in writing on stamp paper on 29/9/99 undertaking and promising to make due payment within fifteen days. However, the petitioners did not make payment despite written promise on stamp paper. Therefore, the complainant lodged written complaint on 1/6/2000 before the Judicial Magistrate Lalsot who sent the same under Sec. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. to the SHO PS Lalsot for registering FIR and investigating into the matter. Thereupon, the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge on 1/7/2000. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is preferred for quashing the F.I.R. itself.

(2.) Shri R.D. Tripathi learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dispute having arisen between the complainant and the petitioners relates to the non payment of money and therefore it is dispute of civil nature, inasmuch as, the contents of criminal complaint resulting into registration of impugned FIR do not prima facie establish allegation of cheating, dishonest delivery or concealment or to prevent distribution amongst the creditors.

(3.) Having heard Shri Tripathi and also having considered the contentions with reference to the contents alleged in the impugned FIR, prima-facie. I am of the view that none of the contentions canvassed by Shri Tripathi do make out any case for interference by this Court to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR itself. The process of investigation was set in motion on the basis of complaint having been sent by the Court below under Sec. 156(3) Cr. P.C., but the complainant has not been made party respondent to this petition. Moreover, the investigation is yet to complete and report after investigation on the complaint has yet to be submitted to the court which has referred the complaint to the police for making inquiry and investigation into the matter. Whatever the evidence produced in the shape of documents so as to establish his case for quashing of the FIR in this petition, can very well be produced by the petitioners during investigation before the police or before the trial Court for establishing their defence in criminal case. However, in this petition this Court cannot meticulously analyse all such material at this stage as an appellate Court nor this Court can appreciate or re-appreciate the material which has not been made available to the investigating agency or the trial Court which is the authority to first analyse and form its opinion as to whether the allegations made in the complaint or FIR and material collected during police inquiry and investigation do make out a case for charges levelled against the accused. In Kurukshetra University Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2229 the Apex Court held as under :