Paras Ram and anr. Vs. the State

Paras Ram and anr. vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 07, 1978

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756157

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/756157
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: R.L. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Apr 07, 1978
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 163/1977
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482--Inherent powers and Penal Code Section 420 & 468/109--Name of accused T not mentioned in complaint Allegation of rubbing of board in assistance of cheating--Complaint filed at Hanumangarh against accused T residing at Took--Held, it is a case of abuse of process of Court--C...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Paras Ram and anr.

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Reported In: 1978WLN(UC)157

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 482--inherent powers and penal code section 420 & 468/109--name of accused t not mentioned in complaint allegation of rubbing of board in assistance of cheating--complaint filed at hanumangarh against accused t residing at took--held, it is a case of abuse of process of court--criminal proceedings quashed.;in this complaint also the complaint has not named tejumal as one of the accused. whatever evidence is said to be against this accused is that he assisted in rubbing out the board of the firm and thus assisted in cheating. this can hardly be any incriminating circumstance against this petitioner.;he is said to be at present residing at took and has to attend the court at hanumangarh. in the circumstances it is a case of abuse of the process of the court to charge tejumal and drag vim for litigation. in the interest of justice the impugned order of the learned magistrate for initiation and continuation of the proceedings against this petitioner is liable to be quashed and his hereby quashsd. the above criminal proceedings penning against tejumaj are quashed.;application partly allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of..........up against tirathdas, narayan das, paras ram tejumal. tejumal was charged for the offences under section 420/109 and 408/109 i.p.c. paras ram was charged for the offence under section 420 and 468 i.p.c. by the learned magistrate vide his impugned order dated 25.8.77. it is against this order that the petitioners paras ram & tejumal have preferred this petition.3. it is alleged by the prosecution that a partnership firm of which tirathdas, narayan das, paras ram and tejumal were partners started its business at hanumangarh. on behalf of this firm tirathdas and narayan das purchased go ds worth rs. 6000/- from the complainant sushil kumar against a cheque for rs. 6,000/-. that cheque no. was 40298 it was alleged that this firm had no money with the bank. the cheque returned dishonoured. the goods were purchased on the misrepresentation and fraud played by tirathdas and narayan das that they had enough money in the bank. the complainant was mislead and parted with goods worth rs. 6000/-. it is further alleged that the firm of the accused has cheated other business concerns.4. the contention of mr. singhvi is that tejumal is neither the partner in the firm nor he had been with tirathdas and narayan das at the time of the purchase of the goods and handing over the cheque. his name also does not appear in the complaint, he has taken me through the complaint, statement of sushil kumar recorded by the police during investigation and has urged that no case under section 420/109 and 468/139 ipc was made against tejumal and the court while framing the charge against him has abused the process of the court and in the interest of justice this order be quashed. so also he has submitted that parasram was a partner in the firm but he was merely a sleeping partner and was not involved in the alleged incident.5. it may be said that tejumal is not a partner in the firm & he was not with tirathdas & narayan das at the time of alleged occurrence of purchase of goods and handing over.....

Full Judgment

R.L. Gupta, J.

1. This is an application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by Parasram and Tejumal for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners in criminal case No. 506/76 Under Sections 420, 468 and 109 I.P.C. pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh.

2. A complaint was filed by one Sushil Kumar against four persons including Parasram petitioner for the offences Under Section 420 and 468 IPC in the court of first Class Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh, That complaint was sent by the learned Magistrate for investigation Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police registered the case and after investigation it did not find sufficient ground for putting up a challan agains Gopal. The other three including the petitioner Parasram were challaned but one Tojumal petitioner No. 2 was included, whose name did rot find in the complent. Thus the challan was put up against Tirathdas, Narayan Das, Paras Ram Tejumal. Tejumal was charged for the offences Under Section 420/109 and 408/109 I.P.C. Paras Ram was charged for the offence Under Section 420 and 468 I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate vide his impugned order dated 25.8.77. It is against this order that the petitioners Paras Ram & Tejumal have preferred this petition.

3. It is alleged by the prosecution that a partnership firm of which Tirathdas, Narayan Das, Paras Ram and Tejumal were partners started its business at Hanumangarh. On behalf of this firm Tirathdas and Narayan Das purchased go ds worth Rs. 6000/- from the complainant Sushil Kumar against a cheque for Rs. 6,000/-. That cheque No. was 40298 It was alleged that this firm had no money with the bank. The cheque returned dishonoured. The goods were purchased on the misrepresentation and fraud played by Tirathdas and Narayan Das that they had enough money in the bank. The complainant was mislead and parted with goods worth Rs. 6000/-. It is further alleged that the firm of the accused has cheated other business concerns.

4. The contention of Mr. Singhvi is that Tejumal is neither the partner in the firm nor he had been with Tirathdas and Narayan Das at the time of the purchase of the goods and handing over the cheque. His name also does not appear in the complaint, He has taken me through the complaint, statement of Sushil Kumar recorded by the police during investigation and has urged that no case Under Section 420/109 and 468/139 IPC was made against Tejumal and the court while framing the charge against him has abused the process of the court and in the interest of justice this order be quashed. So also he has submitted that Parasram was a partner in the firm but he was merely a sleeping partner and was not involved in the alleged incident.

5. It may be said that Tejumal is not a partner in the firm & he was not with Tirathdas & Narayan Das at the time of alleged occurrence of purchase of goods and handing over the cheque. The basis of the F.I R. was the complaint filed by Sushil Kumar before the learned Magistrate which was for investigation to the police In this complaint also the complainant has not named Tejumal as one of the accused Whatever evidence is said to be against this accused is that he assisted in rubbing out the board of the Firm and thus assisted in cheating. This can hardly be any incriminating circumstance against this petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to point out any sufficient incriminating evidence against Tejumal for having any prima facie case against him. He is said to be at present residing at Tonk and has to attend the court at Hanumangarh. In the circumstances it is a case of abuse of the process of the court to charge Tejumal and drag him for litigation. In the interest of justice the impugned order of the learned Magistrate for initiation and continuation of the proceeding against this petitioner is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The above criminal proceedings pending against Tejumal are quashed.

6. As regards Paras Ram it is not proper to discuss the merits of the case at this stage. The petition Under Section 482 is therefore, rejected so far as Parasram is concerned.

7. In the result the application is partly allowed. The above criminal proceedings pending against Tejumal in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh are hereby quashed and the petitioner Tejumal is discharged of the offences he is charged with in these proceedings.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1978 Same Parties Paras Ram and anr. vs The State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.L. Gupta, J.

Criminal