9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking quashing of the order dated 8.8.2003 of the Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 298/2003 - T.R. No. 808/2003. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complainant Umesh Kumar Singh - respondent No. 1 herein, filed a complaint against the appellants before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, inter alia alleging that Smt. Ram Biraji Devi - appellant No. 1 herein, was allotted MIG Plot No. M-27 situated in Housing Board Colony, Gaya. In July 2002, both the appellants represented to the complainant that they were badly in need of money and wanted to transfer the allotted plot to some person interested to purchase the said plot. The complainant expressed his willingness to purchase the plot. It was alleged that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... na under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. praying for quashing of the cognizance taken by the Magistrate. The High Court by the impugned order dated 13.1.2005 dismissed the said petition. Hence, this appeal by way of special leave. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Hon'ble High Court has failed to appreciate that on bare perusal of the contents of the complaint, no offence is made out against the appellants and the complaint filed by the complainant is mala fide, false and frivolous against appellant No. 1, who is stated to be about 70 years old lady and is suffering from heart disease, whereas the appellant No. 2 was working in Ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and on the other hand, he has alleged that he started paying the consideration amount for the purchase of the plot between 15.7.2000 and 15.12.2002. The version of the complainant is self-contradictory and, therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the appellant involving them in the commission of the alleged offences. 10. The learned Magistrate in his order has categorically stated that the perusal of the complaint would make it clear that there was a dispute in respect of sale and purchase of land between the parties. In our view even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Neither any gui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases. There cannot be any disagreement to the well-settled proposition of law that the High Court should exercise its inherent powers in extreme exceptions to quash an FIR or a complaint. The ratio as laid down in Trisuns Chemical Industry's case (supra) is of no help and assistance to the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The complaint instituted does not disclose that an offence under Section 420 is made out. Cognizance taken by the Magistrate thereon against the appellants for of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
