On 12th August 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravindra Maithani, heard the case of Smt. Madhu Thapa v. Rajesh Kumar Vats.
A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Power of court to quash criminal proceedings) was filed by the petitioner for quashing the order pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC (Power of Magistrate to investigate cognizable case) alleging that the son of the respondent, had taken money from her under the promise of securing a job for her brother.
The Respondent filed an application in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar which claimed that the petitioner and her son demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from the respondent for securing a job to his son.
But, the petitioner neither secured the job nor returned the money. When contacted, the petitioner asked the account number of the son of the respondent and deposited various amounts in his account. But the total amount was not returned by her. Therefore, the application was moved for investigation.
After investigation, the police closed the matter on the grounds that earlier, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code, against the son of the respondent, which was rejected, as it did not disclose any cognizable offence.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Original Suit which was pending. The Investigating Officer concluded that for the same subject matter, two cases should not proceed simultaneously and accordingly, closed the investigation.
In 2013, the court summoned the petitioner and others to answer accusations under IPC Sec 406 (Punishment for Criminal Breach), Sec 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Sec 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation). It is this order and proceeding of the case which are under challenge.
Contentions of the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was filed by the petitioner in 2011 on the ground that the son of the respondent had taken various amounts from her for securing a job to her brother, but he neither secured the job nor returned the money. It was argued that as a counterblast to it, the respondent filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code against the petitioner, and therefore the action of the respondent was mala fide.
In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the principles of law, as laid down in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Ahmad Ali Quraishi and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2020) SCC Online Supreme Court 107.
Contentions of the Respondent
Learned senior counsel for the respondent contended that the application under Section 156 (3) of the Code was filed by the petitioner on 23.11.2011 and the original suit was filed by her on 08.08.2012. The respondent filed an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code on 05.06.2012. Learned senior counsel argued that till then the respondent had no information about any action that was taken by the petitioner against him. Therefore, it was argued that it was not a case of counterblast.
Learned senior counsel further argued that on behalf of the petitioner no error was indicated in the impugned order, therefore, it was not a case that may warrant any interference under Section 482 of the Code.
The Counsel for the respondent further argued that the pendency of a civil case is no impediment to proceed with the criminal case, and gave reference to H.S. Bains vs. State, (1980) 4 SCC 631.
Court’s Observation
The Respondent at the time of examination knew that a civil suit was pending between his son and the petitioner on the same subject matter, but not a single word was stated by the respondent about the civil suit.
The fact that the respondent and his son concealed reflects that their action was to inflict vengeance. It reflects that the action of the respondent was malafide.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the summoning order as well entire proceedings were entitled to be quashed. Accordingly, the Court was of the view that the petition deserved to be allowed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
