ANIL DUDHA BHAI KANERIA S/O SHRI DUDHA BHAI KANERIA DIRECTOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused Anil Dudha Bhai Kaneria, Smt. Sheetal Kaneria and Sanjay Makawana preferred this Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing impugned FIR No. 863/2015 registered at Police Station Beawar City, Beawar, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 504, 120B I.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2/complainant submitted a criminal complaint on 02.09.2015 before Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar being complaint no. 449/2015 against the present petitioners stating therein:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(2.) The said complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation to SHO, Police Station Beawar City, Beawar, District Ajmer where impugned FIR No. 863/2015 under Sections 420, 406, 504, 120B I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. Matter is still under investigation.

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioners Mr. Rajesh Mootha submits that from the bare perusal of FIR, it reveals that, the dispute between parties is exclusively of civil nature regarding business transactions. He submits that trading of mineral powder is going on between parties since last 5-6 years and part payment is being given by the petitioners/accused to complainant, therefore the ingredients of cheating enshrined in Section 415 I.P.C. are missing in this matter, therefore there is no ground for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. So far as Section 406 I.P.C. is concerned, there should be entrustment but not a single allegation is their in FIR where respondent no. 2/complainant alleged that accused was entrusted with property or any goods or amount to petitioner which has been alienated. Further Section 504 I.P.C. is concerned, he submits that petitioners are residing at Badadla Bagra, District Bharuch (Gujarat) when did respondent no. 2/complainant visited their he did not mention any date or time. Regarding the offence under Section 504 I.P.C., not only this the words for alleged insulting has not also been mentioned in the FIR, therefore there is no ground for registering FIR or continuing investigation for offence under Section 504 I.P.C. also. Since the ingredients of main offences are missing, therefore offence under Section 120B I.P.C. is also not a ground for continuing investigation. He submits that since no offence is disclosed from the FIR, therefore impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside.