Om Parkash Aggarwal vs State Of Haryana on 16 November, 2009

Criminal Misc. No.M-18017 of 2005                             -1-

                                      ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
              AT CHANDIGARH

                        Criminal Misc. No.M-18017 of 2005
                        Date of decision : 16.11.2009

Om Parkash Aggarwal                                     ....Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Haryana                                        ...Respondent

                               ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present: Mr.G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate for the petitioner.

           Mr. S.S.Patter, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana

           Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.


S. D. ANAND, J.

The impugned prosecution stems from the allegations levelled

in the course of the FIR (Annexure P-2). It is apparent from a perusal

thereof that the parties have a hassle capable of adjudication on the Civil

side. As per the allegations, the complainant had made some supply to

the accused on credit basis. The material contracted for was delivered

through vehicle bearing Registration No.HR 39-A-0368 and it was told to

accused vide No.GR No.A1/355 dated 15.2.2005. However, the

respondent accused did not pay up inspite of repeated telephonic calls and

even a personal visit by the first informant-complainant. Initially when the

first informant-complainant rang up the accused latter held out an

assurance that payment would be made very shortly but that commitment

was not honoured. It was thereafter that the first informant-complainant

personally visited the shop of the respondent-accused and demanded the
Criminal Misc. No.M-18017 of 2005 -2-

****

due amount. The demand aforementioned enraged the respondent-

accused who announced to the former that he would not pay up as “our

habit is to buy material from the people by playing fraud. It is not a big

thing if I had played fraud with you”. The further averment, in the context,

is that it was thereafter that the respondent accused held out a threat to the

first informant that if the latter reported the matter to the police or got a

fraud case registered, he would be done away with.

It is apparent from the allegations that the dispute between the

parties is of civil nature. The allegations pertaining to the impugned threat

also does not inspire confidence because no particulars of the timing

therein have been indicated. In the sentence immediately preceding that,

the allegation is the first informant came back due to fear. It is in the

sentence to follow that it was thereafter that the respondent-accused held

out the averred threat to the first informant-complainant. An allegation for

cognizance must be precise in character in the matter of date and timing

thereof. A vague allegation would not be acceptable by law.

It is, thus, apparent that the dispute between the parties is of

civil nature and that the evidence qua the averred threat does not inspire

confidence.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand

allowed. The impugned FIR No.120 dated 17.3.2005 under Sections

420/406/506 IPC, Police Station Fatehabad, and the proceedings taken in

consequence thereof shall stand quashed.

Disposed of accordingly.

November 16, 2009                                       (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                       JUDGE