Gyan Chand Aneja and Others vs Bhupendra Chandra Dutta Bhowmik

A. Deb, J.—By this application u/s 397/401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the Criminal Case No. C.R. 248 of 1992 of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala and orders passed in the case.

The Petitioners are permanent residents of Delhi and Jaianchand Aneja, Binod Aneja and Dipak Swarup, Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively are the Directors of M/s. LTF Graphic Technologies (P) Ltd. which is a private limited company having its registered office at 3-A/3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Miss Sangita Aneja, Petitioner No. 4 is the unmarried daughter of Gianchand Aneja, Petitioner No. 1 and she is neither a Director nor partner of M/s. LTF Graphic Technologies (P) Ltd. Miss Aneja is a qualified computer programmer having a diploma and in no way connected with the negotiation for sale of the machineries though she used to impart training in programming of the computer and the system involved in the laser printing on behalf of the M/s. LTF Graphic Technologies (P) Ltd. The Petitioner No. 3 looks after technological jobs of the company in respect of installation, demonstration, programming and imparting training in laser printer and computer etc. M/s. Printware Inc. of USA which manufactures laser printers and high technique printing equipments and desk top publishing system had appointed M/s. New Delhi Export Corporation as its sole selling distributors of their printing system. M/s. LTF had agreement with the New Delhi Export Corporation for negotiating on their behalf to import and sell the printing system machines manufactures by M/s. Printware Inc. in USA.

Petitioners case is that O.P. complainant Shri Bhupendra Chandra Dutta Bhowmik, is the sole proprietor of M/s. Imprint, Agartala. The complainant O.P. filed a complaint petition u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1973 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura against the Petitioners alleging, interalid, that the Petitioners committed offence under Sections 420/506/468/477 (A) read with Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition it is clearly stated that the complainant wanted to expand and modernise his plant and machineries and obtained loan from the Tripura Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Initially the complainant placed order for 300 DPI with M/s. Monotype India Limited for importing the same from England. As the delivery was being delayed and the complainant was in urgent need of machineries the complainant was induced by the literatures of M/s. LTF, which is the selling agent of DPI Laser Printer of M/s. Printware Inc. and placed orders with M/s. LTF for supply of 1200 DPI Laser Printers 720 of USA.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala vide order dated 29.7.1992 took cognizance against the persons under Sections 420/506/468/477 (A)/120 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The order dated 29.7.1995 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura reads as follows:

29.7.92.

Received a complaint petition, Register it in my file as C.R. Case

The complainant is present. He is examined and his statement is recorded on oath. No further witnesses are present to be examined. From the deposition of the complainant it appears that he made out a prima facia case against the (sic) persons to proceed further with the case.

(sic).

(sic)

(sic)

Sd- s.(sic) Chief Judicial Magistrate West Tripura, Agartala.

I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior Counsel appearing with Dey and Mr. P. Rathor learned Advocate and Mr. N. Majumdar, learned appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. H.K. Saha Roy, senior counsel with Sarkar and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Advocate for the opposite Party and Das, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits Petitioners moved before the Supreme Court for transfer of the case from to a competent Court at New Delhi vide Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 1992 and the Supreme Court vide its order dated 18.1.1993 refused to the case. Mr. Das further submitted that the Petitioners further filed a (sic) being Money Suit No. 117 of 1992 in the Court of the Assistant District West Tripura, Agartala for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4 crores and odd, (sic) further submitted that the Petitioners asked for payment of certain bills (sic) bills were presented to the Opposite Party and the Petitioners also filed Suit in Delhi High Court. Lastly Mr. Das submitted that this complated Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure is a counter blast to the Civil (sic) by the Petitioners and the complaint is misconceived, speculate unsustainable.

Mr. Saha Roy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the opposite has submitted a written argument/submission on 21.7.1995 which is submitted by Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Counsel for the Opposite-parties.

So far as Section 420 I.P.C. is concerned the main ingredients are laid in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1954 SC. The principal elements are (a) representation by the accused knowing be false with intent to deceive the complainant.

So far is Section (sic) is concerned the main ingredients of criminal (sic) accused has dishonestly misappropriated. So far as Section 468 of I.P.C. (forgery for the purpose of cheating) concerned, the element of forgery is present.

So far as Section 477(A) (falsification of account) is concerned, the main ingredient is present. So far as Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy) is concerned the ingredients are there for a prima facie case.

The entire deposition of the complainant is to be read along with the whole of the complaint so as to find out the ingredients of Section 420, 406 477A and (sic)20B of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused persons 1 to 3 are directors of LTF Graphic Technologies (P) united and the accused No. 4 is connected with the LTF as Computer Programmer Trainer.

Mr. Das, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argues that is a fit case where the entire proceeding in case No. C.R. 248 of 1992 pending the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura and it does not warrant interference under revisional jurisdiction.

From the arguments, written submission of learned Counsel appearing (sic) the Opposite Party, I find that they have advanced an argument with regard to (sic)ing cognizances u/s 406 I.P.C. I have gone carefully through the (sic)nal complaint filed u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (sic) and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura on 29.7.1992 (sic)mined the complainant and on perusal of the original complaint Petitioner on record, it appears that the complainant mentioned "That the accused persons (sic)ioned above have committed offence u/s 420/506/468/477 (A)/(sic) of the IPC". It is also evident from the order dated 29.7.1992 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the accused persons under Sections 420/506/468/477 (A)/120B of Indian Penal Code.

From the argument of Mr. Saha Roy, learned senior Counsel appearing the opposite party, I find that the complainant have advanced an argument (sic) regard to taking cognizance u/s 406 of Indian Penal Code. I have (sic)lly gone through the original complaint and examination of the complainant or Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, West Tripura on 29.7.1992 and on perusal of the original complaint (sic) on record it appears that the complainant mentioned - ''the accused persons (sic)oned above have committed offences u/s 420/506/468/477A/120 (sic) the IPC''. It is also evident from the order dated 29.7.1992 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the accused person under Sections 420/468/506/477A/120B of Indian Penal Code. But the deposition of the (sic)ainant shows that no case u/s 506 of Indian Penal Code has been (sic)out. But an arguable case u/s 406 of Indian Penal Code has been (sic)out. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance and on facts and circumstances of the case the revisional jurisdiction can not be exercised.

Now it is to be considered whether inherent powers can be involved. In the case of Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others, it is held that Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as whole. It appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of statement on oath of the complainant, and ingredients of offences are disclosed there is no material to show that the complaint is malafide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no jurisdiction for interference by the High Court. It is, therefore, not necessary for a meticulous analysis of the complaint and such meticulous analysis or views expressed may prejudice either of the parties.

I have read the complaint as a whole and it appears on a consideration of the allegations in the light of statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of offences u/s 420/468/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code have been prima facie made out and there was no error on the part of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance under the aforesaid section of Indian Penal Code. From the complaint petition, written statement and the deposition of the complainant on oath it appears that no case u/s 506 of India Penal Code has been made out. Section 506 of India Penal Code relates to commission of offence of Criminal intimidation and punishment for criminal intimidation. Admittedly, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has jurisdiction to take cognizance and error merely on the ground that there is commission, error or irregularities in the charge including any misjoinder of charges unless a failure of justice in fact has been occasioned thereby. In the present case I am of the view that the Appellant shall not be prejudiced because of the error in taking cognizance u/s 506 of Indian Penal Code, Cognizance u/s 506 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.

In the result, present application under Sections 397/401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails and accordingly dismissed.