Amarjit Singh Tathgur vs M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd.

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No. 1201 dated

13.5.2004 u/s 418, 419, 420 read with Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code (''IPC for short), titled as M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd.

Vs. Amarjit Singh Tathgur (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the summoning order dated 19.7.2005

(Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. Petitioner had filed

a claim before the Arbitrator in pursuance to the arbitration clause entered between the parties at the time of execution of the agreement dated

16.10.2002. Respondent had also filed a counter claim. However, the Arbitrator vide its award dated 6.11.2012 has dismissed the claim and the

counter claim filed by the parties.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.

In the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the Apex Court has held as under:-

The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers

u/s 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae

and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No. 2, even if they are taken at their face value and

accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of

the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the

commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated u/s 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever

reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is

instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,

providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive

for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with

circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an

arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.

Case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant wanted to develop and upgrade its technology for processing and manufacturing insulating

heat shrinkable products for application in electrical, tele-communication sectors. Complainant, believing the representation made by the

respondent, executed an agreement dated 16.10.2002 with the petitioner and petitioner agreed to provide services for modernization,

development and upgrading of existing technology in manufacture of insulated heat shrinkable products. However, the petitioner had failed to do

the needful. Hence, the complaint in question was filed.

During the course of arguments, copy of the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 6.11.2012 has been placed on record by the learned counsel

for the petitioner. Passing of the said award has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the award reveals that there was

an arbitration clause in the agreement dated 16.10.2002. Petitioner had filed the claim before the Arbitrator claiming Rs. 1,39,70,958/- towards

penalty. Respondent filed its counter claim claiming Rs. 17,73,58,237/- along with interest. The Arbitrator vide award dated 6.11.2012 dismissed

the claim filed by the petitioner as well as the counter claim filed by the respondent.

In the present case, respondent had engaged the services of the petitioner to modernize, develop and upgrade its existing technology qua

manufacture of insulating heat shrinkable products. As per the complainant, petitioner had failed to do the needful. This shows that the dispute

between the parties was purely contractual and civil in nature. Both the parties have availed their remedy before the Arbitrator and have failed.

Since the dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature and they have already resorted to their remedy before the Arbitrator, continuation

of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Complaint No.

1201 dated 13.5.2004 u/s 418, 419, 420 read with Section 424 IPC, titled as M/s. Yamuna Gases and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Amarjit Singh Tathgur

(Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 19.7.2005 (Annexure P-3), are

quashed.