Sri Raju S/O. Suresh Baddi vs. Sri Ramesh S/O. Balusa Baddi

Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the cognizance order dated March 27, 2023, and further proceedings in C.C. No. 3339/2023 before the JMFC-I Court, Hubballi. The respondent is the complainant. The complainant alleged that he and the petitioner started a cloth store, 'Balakrishna Kids,' and incurred loans from various financial institutions. The complainant claimed that the petitioner conspired with another person to close existing loan accounts and then induced the complainant to believe they should clear all debts and open a single loan account by mortgaging the complainant's property. The complainant alleged he sold land to pay an outstanding loan of Rs. 80,00,000/-. When approached to clear the loan, the petitioner allegedly stated it was the complainant's responsibility, leading to a quarrel, abuse, and criminal intimidation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had not made out sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Regarding the petitioner's contention that the private complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Court distinguished the ratio in Priyanka Srivastava's case. It noted that Priyanka Srivastava's case dealt with a complaint referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation, which requires an affidavit. In contrast, the present case involved a private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., where the Magistrate conducted an inquiry and did not refer the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the requirement of an affidavit as per Priyanka Srivastava's case was not applicable. Concerning the application of Sections 420, 504, and 506 of IPC, the Court found that, prima facie, the allegations in the complaint attracted these sections. The Court stated that disputed questions of fact, such as whether the petitioner was involved, whether the complainant was the sole proprietor, and whether the complainant was blackmailing the accused due to business losses, could not be adjudicated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and required a full-fledged trial. The Court reiterated that disputed questions of fact cannot be decided at this stage, and only a prima facie case needs to be seen, citing Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra. Since the complaint prima facie disclosed cognizable offences, it was not proper to quash the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner made out sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? The petitioner argued that the cognizance order and criminal proceedings were baseless. He contended that the complainant was the sole proprietor of the cloth store, as evidenced by Annexures C (rent agreement) and D (GST certificate), and the petitioner was not involved in the business or its financial transactions. The petitioner claimed the complainant suffered business losses and was attempting to blackmail him. He further argued that the ingredients of Sections 420, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not attracted. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the private complaint was not supported by an affidavit, making the cognizance taken by the Trial Court mechanical and not in accordance with law. The petitioner relied on Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Mallikarjuna and others Vs. The State of Karnataka, and Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant argued that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. He asserted that his sworn statement as PW.1 and the 46 documents placed on record provided sufficient material to frame charges, and therefore, the petition should be dismissed.