M/s. Avenues Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs M/s. Voltas Limited

Sabina, J.—Petitioners have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of criminal complaint No. 6997 of 2007 (Annexure P1) titled `M/s. Voltas Limited vs. State Bank of Patiala and others'' and summoning order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P2) along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. The case of the complainant as per complaint (Annexure P1), in brief, is that the complainant company was manufacturer and seller of various electronics products. Petitioners had been appointed as Dealers of the Company for Chandigarh Area. Petitioners had dispatched material to their co-accused. However, the requisite payment had not been made by the co-accused of the petitioners to the Company in terms of the conditions of the invoice. In this way, the petitioners and their co-accused had misappropriated Rs. 1,52,300.01 P of the Company. In support of its case, complainant led its preliminary evidence. Vide order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P2), petitioners and their co-accused were ordered to be summoned to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute between the parties was purely money dispute, hence, could be termed as civil dispute. In this regard, complainant had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,60,383/- against the petitioners as well as their co-accused. By filing the complaint in question, complainant has tried to give criminal colour to the civil dispute.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that all the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant had failed to pay the amount in question.

It has been held in 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, 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.

(7) 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.

In the present case, a perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the dispute between the parties can be said to be a purely civil in nature relating to payment of the amount in question. Petitioners were working as dealers under the complainant with regard to Chandigarh Area. Through petitioners, their co-accused had purchased certain material manufactured by the complainant company. However, the payment of the amount in question was not made by the co-accused of the petitioners. In this regard, complainant has already filed a civil suit, Annexure P3, for recovery of the amount in question. Thus, the complainant has already resorted to the available civil remedy. However, the complaint in question was liable to be dismissed qua the petitioners as by filing the said complaint, complainant has tried to give criminal colour to the civil dispute. In these circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Summoning order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P2) qua the petitioners is quashed. Consequently, Criminal complaint No. 6997 of 2007 (Annexure P1) is deemed to have been dismissed qua the petitioners.