Prahaladrai Gupta, Managing Director of Kapil Roller Mills and Others vs Babubhai Umedbhai Patel and Another

Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appears to be that a criminal complaint being No. 3088 of 1998 was filed by the complainant respondent No. 1 against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that the complainant had placed the order of food for cattles weighing ten ton (one truck) and the amount was also paid of Rs. 41,772/- vide D.D. No. 193995 dated 05/01/1998 of Bank of Baroda, Kulpada Branch, Surat. After receipt of the amount the goods were not supplied and, therefore it is alleged in the complaint that the accused had dishonest intention of appropriating the amount from the very beginning, hence alleged offence has been committed.

Learned Magistrate initially examined the complainant and issued process. Thereafter, the accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed an application for discharge on the ground that the order was placed with the broker and there are earlier transactions with the complainant and therefore no offence is committed. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 10/03/2003 below the said application for discharge found that unless the evidence is recorded it would not be a case to discharge the accused at this stage and therefore dismissed the application. Under these circumstances the present petition for quashing of the complaint.

Heard Ms. Avni Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shashtri original complainant - respondent No. 1 and Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for respondent No. 2-State of Gujarat.

The accusation made in the complaint for acceptance of the money and not supplying of the goods, prima-facie cannot be said as no offence whatsoever has been committed. The defence as to be canvassed either before the learned Magistrate or before this Court in the present proceedings cannot be gone into in a petition under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of quashing of the complaint. No material is produced to show any abuse of process of law. The only contention raised is that it is essentially a civil dispute for which the criminal complaint could not have been filed. It is not necessary that if civil wrong is committed there would not be any criminal wrong. Certain action may be such which may attract both the proceedings. If criminal proceedings are initiated by way of a substitution of civil proceedings or with a view to pressurize in the civil proceedings or with a view to short circuit the civil proceedings, it may result into abuse of process of law and this Court may discourage the same. Such does not appear to be in the present case.

Hence, the petition is merit-less, therefore dismissed. Rule discharged. I.R. stands vacated.