CHAUDHARY RAM Vs. TILAK RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 complaint Annexure P-1, and entire proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint including order Annexure P-2, by which charge under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, is ordered to be armed against the petitioner Chaudhary Ram, are sought to be quashed.

(2.) Contents of complaint dated 18.12.1984 (Annexure P-1) indicate that complainant Tilak Raj was working as tailor on the raised platform in front of the shop the petitioner and had been making voluntary payments to the petitioner for quite some time against some kacha receipts. Statedly, within a span of about 9-1/2 years complainant paid a sum of Rs. 34,500/- as per detailed given on page 2 of the complaint out of which the last payment of Rs. 10,000/- is said to have been made after withdrawing money from the Bank. It is said that the amount was being deposited with the petitioner and was kept in trust with him particularly because complainant was a physically handicapped person. If the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was drawn from some bank, obviously, complainant was keeping account in a bank and deposit in the bank was bound to be safer. Without any occasion he would not have withdrawn such a big sum from the bank merely to keep the same in deposit with the petitioner. Apart from that, complainant does not show if any of the amounts deposited with the petitioner was ever demanded back within the aforesaid span of about 9-1/2 years. The complaint does not either show if any direction was ever made to the petitioner with regard to use of the money by the complainant so as to call for a situation for its violation. Sum of money on account of its liquidated nature cannot be dealt with like other property entrustment, or dominion whereof might be given to a particular person for the simple reason as the same is never to be returned in specie. When 'A' deposits sum of money with 'B', the only liability of 'B' is to pay back 'A' an equivalent sum of money and it is never the intention of the parties that the same currency notes/coins are to be delivered on demand. For all these reasons it seems to be a case of simple lending or monetary business transactions within the domain of civil law. In the given circumstances, it would at the most amount to breach of contract which could entail a civil liability particularly when the amount is said to have been kept against some kacha receipts and that too for sufficiently long period without any specific demand for refund. Thus from the allegations contained in the complaint Annexure P-1 no criminal offence is made out and criminal proceedings taken against the petitioner are simply abuse of the process of the Court to pressurise him.

(3.) The observations of the learned Magistrate in order Annexure P-2 to the effect that as the petitioner had failed to return the amount to the complainant on his demand, it is prima facie made out that the accused had committed an offence of criminal breach of trust, do not appeal to reason. In such a situation, only a civil liability is created and even if allegations, in complaint are accepted, no case of Criminal Breach of trust within the meaning of Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable under Section 406 thereof can be said to have been made out.