SOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.250/2022 dtd. 20/4/2022 registered at Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh for offence under Ss. 406, 420 IPC and Ss. 4 & 5 of Chit Fund Act, 1982. Facts in brief are that the on 22/11/2021, respondent No.2/ complainant filed a complaint before the ACJM, Sangria, District Hanumangarh against the present petitioner, accused Nindi Soni and Rajpal, inter alia alleging therein that he was working in Aurik Motors, Sangria. In the month of May, 2021, accused Nindi Soni came to the complainant and told him to invest in Kinko Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Company, which is a chit fund company. At that time, accused Nindi Soni was also working in the said company. The accused Nindi Soni also narrated the complainant about the investment plans. It has been alleged that relying upon Nindi Soni, the complainant transferred Rs.25,000.00 to Nindi Soni through Googal Pay for the purpose of investment in the said chit fund company. Two more persons namely Pankaj and Punit also transferred money to accused Nindi Soni. It has been further alleged that the present petitioner Sohanlal and accused Rajpal are the Managing Directors of the said chit fund company. After investment in the said chit fund, only Rs.2,550.00 was transferred twice in the bank account of the complainant and thereafter nothing was paid to the complainant. Upon which, the complainant along with other persons went at the office of the said company but the same was found locked and the accused persons also did not reply to the calls of the complainant. It has been alleged in the complainant that the accused persons committed fraud with the complainant and other persons and peculated their money and after closing down the company, fled away. The accused persons also transferred their properties in the name of their wife.

(2.) The said complaint was sent to the Police Station Sangaria for investigation. Upon which the present FIR was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons for the aforesaid offences and Police started investigation. Being aggrieved by the impugned FIR, the petitioners filed the present misc. petition for quashing of the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on perusal of the impugned FIR, it would reveal that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner and a complete false and frivolous FIR has been lodged by the complainant. Counsel further submits that as many as 12 FIR have already been registered against the petitioner in respect of the alleged fraud committed by him, therefore, all the FIR should have been clubbed and investigation should be done by a single Investigating Officer and not by different investigating Officer in each FIRs. Further, the present FIR is nothing but a second FIR, which has been registered on the basis of the material collected during investigation in other FIRs. Counsel submits that a fresh investigation or a second FIR on the basis of the same or connected cognizable offence would constitute an "abuse of the statutory power of investigation".