1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 473 OF 2008 Mukul Dautkhani .vs. State of Mah. & another ________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders. Registrars orders. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. DATED: JUNE 24, 2008. Heard Mr. H.D. Dubey, the learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. D.B. Yengal, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr. P.G. Thombre, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. The application is filed under the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash and set aside the FIR registered against the applicant at the instance of respondent no.2 under section 420 of Indian Penal Code as well as proceedings of Criminal Case No. 553/03, arising out of above F.I.R. and pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha. I have perused the FIR registered on 16.3.2003 at the instance of respondent no.2. The FIR reveals that the applicant was engaged by the respondent no.2 as a contractor for the purpose of construction on plot belonging to the respondent no.2. The FIR further alleged that the applicant between February, 1999 to February, 2000 received an amount of Rs.90,000/- from respondent no.2 and during that time the applicant completed construction upto the slab level. In the month of March, 2000 the applicant again demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the respondent no.2 paid him 2 an amount of Rs.90,000/- in the month of April, 2000. When the respondent went to inspect the progress of construction he found that the applicant had already removed the centering as well as construction material. Thereafter the applicant did not restart the construction and, therefore, the respondent no.2 got valued the construction work and it was revealed that the applicant spent only an amount of Rs.70,306/- though he obtained an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- from the respondent no.2. In these facts and circumstances, the respondent no.2 alleged that the applicant has committed offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that firstly the complaint does not disclose any offence under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and secondly, the dispute is of civil nature and for which the respondent no.2 already approached the Consumer Court, however, his Complaint was dismissed and, therefore, he has preferred an appeal before the appellate forum. The first contention of Mr. Dubey, learned Counsel for the applicant, is without any merit in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajesh Bajaj .vs. State NCT of Delhi reported in (1999) 3 SCC 259 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is not necessary that the complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence alleged. It was also held not necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. It was further observed that, splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at the stage of quashing. Apex Court also held quashing of Criminal case at 3 investigation stage is permitted in very rare case. In my opinion, ratio of above Apex Court decision can be made applicable to the present case. So far as the second contention, namely, the nature of the dispute being civil is concerned, same does not support to quash the complaint in the light of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh reported in AIR 2001 SC 3014. The Apex Court in this case held that in all the cases of cheating and fraud there is generally some element of civil nature and in the Criminal Court the allegation made in the complaint has to be established independently notwithstanding the adjudication of the civil dispute by Civil Court. In view of this decision, I do not find any substance in second submission made by Mr. Dubey, the learned Counsel for the applicant. Be that as it may, the police have filed the charge-sheet in pursuance of the FIR. There is no dispute that the Criminal Case is at the stage of evidence. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in my jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. The application is hence dismissed. Mr. Dubey, the learned Counsel for the applicant, at this stage requests extension of the stay granted by this Court for a further period of eight weeks. Mr. Thombre, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, opposed the request. I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the stay is extended for a period of six weeks from today. Therefore, the stay granted by this Court on 4.2.2008 is extended for a further period of six weeks from today. J. JUDGE.