Srinagar, Aug 02: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday refused to quash an FIR against a man who allegedly duped an individual of Rs.12 lakh by making him invest in a company on the pretext that he will be paid profits on sharing basis.
The court declined to quash FIR against the accused Waseem Akbar Ganie after observing that the Court would be reluctant to stifle the prosecution against the petitioner (accused) as the same would amount to "scuttling a genuine prosecution."
The court was hearing a plea by Ganie, who claimed to be the Director of a company, 'Ethro Basket Marketing Company'- a venture to supply fresh fruits and vegetables to societies, had sought quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings initiated against him in connection with the cheating case registered in 2020 at police station Pulwama for offences under section 420 of IPC.
Referring to the FIR, a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that it has been clearly alleged by the complainant that the accused on July, 05, 2019 had represented himself to be a Director of the company, whereafter he induced the complainant to invest his money in the company with an assurance that he will be paid profits on sharing basis.
It was alleged in the complaint that a website was set-up by the accused and he offered 50% return in two weeks and in pursuance of this offer, the complainant invested an amount of Rs.16.00 lakhs through online transaction by operating the said website.
According to the complainant, he was paid back only a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs whereas Rs.12.00 lakhs remained outstanding.
The bench underscored that the petitioner, after the complainant had invested his money by operating the website, made the website to disappear and even the offices of the company, for whom the petitioner was purportedly working, also disappeared on August, 10, 2019.
The court noted that this clearly indicates that the intention of the accised at the time of entering into the transaction with the complainant was not bonafide and, in fact, his intention was dishonest from the very beginning.
"Once the complainant invested the money, the website went off the internet and the offices of the company also disappeared. There cannot be a more clear indication of the fact that the intention of the petitioner in the instant case was dishonest from the very beginning," the bench pointed out.
Thus, the court recorded, it is not a case which involves a pure and simple civil dispute regarding commercial transactions but it is a case which also has a criminal texture to it.
"Therefore, this Court would be reluctant to stifle the prosecution against the petitioner as the same would amount to scuttling a genuine prosecution," the bench noted while dismissing the plea.