RAM NARAIN DEORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, has prayed for quashing the F. I. R. No. 278/94 (EX. P. 10) lodged by Nimba Ram against him at Police Station, Nagaur.

(2.) THE allegations made in the written report, lodged by Nimba Ram, are that on 25-2-94, he applied for the loan for his tube- well from Amfort Agro Finance Limited, Branch Office, Nagaur, and submitted the application in the prescribed form after completing the necessary formalities. Dileep Kankariya was the Assistant Manager while Rani Narain Deora was the Branch Manager of the aforesaid Finance Company. THEy and one Prema informed the complainant to deposit Rs. 25,000/- so that the loan may be released in his favour. THE informant deposited Rs. 2000/- on 10-3-94 as the service charges vide receipt No. 2860 and Rs. 25,000/- were deposited on 23-3-94 vide receipt No. 13923 in the Nagaur Branch of Amfort Agro. Finance Limited. His son, also, deposited Rs. 2000/- on 10-3-94 vide receipt No. 2859. THE Amfort Agro. Finance Company thereafter released a cheque for an amount of Rs. 60,000/- on 25-4-94, which was dishonoured by the bank. After the cheque being dishonoured, he approached the officers of the Finance Company posted at Nagaur but they refused to make payment and showed their inability. When the complainant demanded back the amount of Rs. 29,000/- then they declined to make payment and informed him that the Office has been closed and no payment can be made. On the basis of this information, a case was registered against the petitioner, Dileep Kankariya and one Prema at Police Station, Nagaur.

(3.) THE next contention, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the cheques, which were dishonoured, were issued by the company and not by the petitioner and the amount never remained with the petitioner and he sent the same to the company. In support of this contention, he has placed on record certain receipt issued by Amfort Agro. Finance Company Limited. Consideration of documents, produced by the petitioner, and his defence, at this stage, would amount to investigation by the Court: whether the offences, alleged in the F. I. R. ,are made-out. That exercise cannot be performed by the High Court in its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. P. C. because that will amount to usurping the powers vested in the investigating agency.