PRAVEEN TAYAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash FIR No. 0088/2018 registered at Police Station Alwar Gate Ajmer, District Ajmer for the offences under Ss. 506, 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC.

(2.) It is contended that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed one criminal complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Ajmer, mentioning therein that the complainant has been dealing in the business of scrap in Ajmer and the accused-persons contacted the complainant at Ajmer and represented that they have heavy stock of scrap in Mumbai, which they intended to sell the same to the complainant. Believing upon the statements made by the accused-persons the complainant transferred amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs on 26/9/2008 and thereafter 3 lakhs on 8/5/2010. It was submitted that the promise to deliver the scrap was made in the year 2008 and substantial amount was also paid to the accused persons in the year 2008 to 2010, yet, when the goods were not delivered, the complainant sent one notice in the year 2013 and after receiving the notice on different occasions, and in different instalments, part of the amount received by the accused was returned back in the year 2013 and 2014, however, instead of repaying the remaining amount, the accused-persons threatened the complainant which amounts to cheating with the complainant and for that purpose on the basis of criminal complaint, FIR was lodged on 21/3/2018.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that FIR lodged by complainant is malicious in nature and even bare perusal of contents of FIR would not constitute any cognizable offence against the petitioners. Bare reading of FIR would reveal that this is a matter of purely civil nature as commercial transactions, which took place from the year 2008 to 2013-14 have been mentioned, where there was some promise to deliver goods and consideration was also tendered against such promise and on account of non fulfilment of promise, part of the amount was returned back. It was submitted that there was no inducement on the part of the petitioners, nor was there any allegation with regard to entrustment of any amount to the petitioners. Hence, the necessary ingredients of Sec. 415 IPC, which defines cheating as well as 406 IPC, which narrates criminal trust are not there in this case.