Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited, A Co. Regd. Company Act and Others vs State of Gujarat and Another

S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—The Petitioners, who have been named as accused in private complaint being Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2005 and which has been registered as M-Case No. 3 of 2005, have approached this Court u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quotient of Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2005 and the complaint being M-Case No. 3 of 2005 pending there from registered with Vapi GIDC Police Station on the ground that the said complaint was incompetent and sheer abuse of process of law and hence requires to be quashed.

The facts in brief leading to filing this petition are required to be set out as under:

The Petitioner No. 1 happens to be a private limited Company registered as such under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner No. 2 happens to be Territory Development Manager and Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are employees of the said Company. The Respondent No. 2 - ori. complainant was appointed as a distributor under the contract dated 6.12.1999. The Respondent No. 2 appears to have filed private complaint in his capacity as Partner/Administrator of M/s. Ravi Cam Corporation, a partnership firm, who had in fact been appointed as distributor at the relevant point of time under the said agreement alleging that the Petitioner No. 1 in collusion with Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 gave assurance that on complainant giving demand draft of Rs. 69,000/- to the accused towards advance payment of the stock the accused will supply stock of cold-drinks to the said distributor. The complainant relying upon the said assurance sent demand draft but the accused did not send the stock as agreed. The accused instead of sending stock to the complainant gave distributorship to two other persons in the area who started selling the cold-drinks provided by the accused. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint came to be registered as Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2005 wherein the learned Magistrate issued order of investigation to be carried out by the concerned Police Station u/s 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The concerned Police Station, therefore, registered the same to be M-Case No. 3 of 2005 and started investigation. The Petitioners, therefore, were constrained to prefer this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein this Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, J) vide its order dated 17.6.2005 issued rule and stayed the proceeding.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners drew attention of the Court to the fact that the complainant has made false averments for putting the Court machinery into motion that the accused did not have authority and right to appoint distributor in the area and the complainant''s son was the sole distributor. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited this Court attention to Item No. 4 in the agreement i.e. 1.12.1999 and submitted that the plain reading of the said clause would amply show that the complainant did not make correct statement in the complaint. The learned Counsel, thereafter, invited this Court attention to Clause (j) of Condition No. 15 of the agreement and submitted that the distributor was under obligation for those factors mentioned in the said clause, namely, collection of empty bottles and crates etc. The learned advocate thereafter invited this Court''s attention to the proceeding of Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 2005 instituted by the complainant''s firm against Petitioner No. 1 in the Court of Pardi, Civil Judge (J.D.) which initially for seeking injunction against the Petitioner No. 1 from not interfering with the distribution work and restraining from appointing someone else as distributor. The learned Counsel, thereafter, invited this Court''s attention to the proceeding in the nature of Special Criminal Application No. 19243 of 2005 filed by the Petitioner which were arising out of the orders made in the Civil Suit filed by the Respondent No. 2 and submitted that the said Special Criminal Application was partly allowed. The Petitioner was permitted to appoint dealers in the area. The learned advocate submitted that, in view of this, the dispute between the parties essentially of civil nature and in order to exert undue pressure the complaint is lodged. The ingredients for maintaining action under Sections 406 and 420 are conspicuously absent in the entire proceeding and, therefore, the complaint and criminal case deserve to be quashed.

The learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No. 2 contended that the payment of Rs. 69,000/- was by way of demand draft and hence it was the duty cast upon the Petitioners to dispatch the stock in question. The amount of Rs. 69,000/- by way of demand draft was sent on an assurance on the part of the Petitioners collectively and hence the Petitioners pursued the Respondent No. 2 in parting with the amount and did not send the stock in question and, therefore, it can well be said that ingredients, requires for bringing action so far as Sections 406 and 420 are concerned, existing and complaint therefore may not be quashed.

This Court has perused the complaint and the order of this Court passed in Special Criminal Application No. 19243 of 2005. It is at this stage requires to be noted that no reply affidavit whatsoever is filed in this matter denying the averments made in this petition. Ordinarily this Court would not look at the documents produced by the Petitioners seeking quotient of the complaint made against them, but in the instant case in the documents, which are sought to be relied upon are in the nature which cannot be controverter and, therefore, those documents and filing of the Civil Suit with prayer of restraining the Petitioners from not interfering with the distributorship of the complainant persuaded this Court to hold that the complaint was nothing but an attempt to exert undue pressure. In my view, therefore, the dispute was initially that of civil nature for which the complaint could not have been filed so as to put Court machinery into motion and, therefore, the complaint being Inquiry Case No. 15 of 2005 and which has been registered as M-Case No. 3 of 2005 are required to be quashed and are quashed. Accordingly, rule made absolute. No order as to costs.