Prabhakar Narayan Pandey vs M/s Shri Krishna Stone Lime Co. Maihar

Narain Singh ''Azad'', J.

Respondent M/s Shri Krishna Stone Lime Co., Maihar, filed a Civil Suit registered as Civil Suit No. 10-B/95, in the Court of Civil Judge, Class I, Maihar, Dist. Satna, against this petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 22,000/- in addition to the interest thereof, certified copy of plaint is marked as Annex. A/5, on the facts that land bearing Khasra Nos. 98, 961, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729/2 and 738, total area measuring 7.651 hectares, belonging to this petitioner and falling in the mining lease area of respondent/plaintiff, was agreed to be sold by the petitioner/defendant to respondent/plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 7,500/- per acre by a written agreement dated 29th April, 1991, and the petitioner/defendant obtained an amount of Rs. 20,000/- from respondent/plaintiff, as advance under the aforesaid agreement.

On 6th July, 1994, the petitioner/defendant again obtained an amount of Rs. 2000/- from the partner of the respondent/plaintiff''s firm under the aforesaid sale agreement but the petitioner/defendant did not get the sale deed registered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff inspite of repeated requests made on behalf of respondent/plaintiff instead on 17th June, 1992, he executed a registered sale deed in respect of aforesaid land in favour of one M/s Vora & Co., Maihar. Later on, the petitioner/defendant got a Civil Suit filed bearing No. 58-A/93, before the Civil Judge, Class I, Maihar, on behalf of his sons, challenging the competency of the petitioner/defendant in transferring the aforesaid land to M/s. Vora & Co., Maihar. According to respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner/defendant obtained an amount of Rs. 22,000/- under the aforesaid sale agreement, by playing fraud and thus committed an act of cheating for which, a criminal case is filed against the petitioner/defendant, who did not make the payment inspite of demand.

The certified copy of the complaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff against this petitioner in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maihar, for an offence punishable u/s. 420 and 427 of the I.P.C., which is registered as Criminal Complaint No. 262/97 is marked as Annexure A/3. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maihar, took cognizance of offence punishable U/s. 420 of the I.P.C. against this petitioner on 28th April, 1997, in connection with aforesaid complaint. A certified copy of aforesaid order passed by the learned Addl. C.J.M. Maihar, dated 28th April, 1994, is marked as Annexure A/4.

The petitioner in this petition seeks quashment of Criminal Case no. 262/97 registered on 28th April, 1997, on the ground that since a Civil Suit was filed, therefore, a criminal complaint was not tenable in respect of one and the same cause of action. In support of this contention, my attention has been drawn to a case reported in Hari Prasad Chamaria Vs. Bishun Kumar Surekha and Others, . It is found explained by their Lordships of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that in the absence of facte to the effect that the petitioner/defendant induced the respondent/plaintiff to pay him the amount by deceiving him and further that at the time of agreement the petitioner/defendant knew it to be false, it would be just and proper to quash the proceeding for an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the I.P.C., because the dispute would be a matter of civil liability. Thus, there has to be averments in complaint, showing dishonest and fraudulent intent of the accused at the time of initial stage, means execution of sale agreement

In the present case, it is not found exhibited in complaint, filed on behalf of the respondent/defendant, that at the time of sale agreement dated 29th April, 1991, the petitioner/defendant had no intention to actually transfer the land to the respondent/plaintiff and with dishonest so also fraudulent intention, he obtained an amount of Rs. 22,000/- from the complainant. Consequently, the proceeding in criminal case bearing No. 262/97, pending in the Court of Addl. C.J.M. Maihar, would be an abuse of the process of Court which is liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers.

Since delay does not defeat the remedy of, exercise of inherent power, this argument advanced on behalf of respondent/plaintiff is of no consequence that complaint is filed in 1995, whereas, this petition is filed after a lapse of six years.

In result, this petition succeeds and the Criminal Case No. 262/97, pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maihar, against this petitioner, stands quashed.