S.L.Daga, Managing Director vs Birbal S/o Sh.Beli Ram

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint under Sections 420/120B of Indian Penal Code dated 21.121990 filed by Birbal respondent, Annexure P/1 and proceedings taken in consequence thereof including the summoning order dated 15.1.199 Annexure P/2 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

The relevant facts of the case are that Birbal who is manager of M/s Gopal Dass Jagat Ram Private Limited, Ludhiana filed a complaint against the petitioners and one Bharat Bhushan Mehra Broker alleging that the petitioners agreed to supply 400 MT. of 100% synthetic waste to the complainant at price of Rs. 7.90 per kilogram at Ludhiana on the terms and conditions mentioned in agreement dated 8.10.1988. The petitioners however, supplied only 66837 kilograms of material an the rest of the material was not supplied till the filing of the complaint. The complainant was a bulk purchaser and supplier of raw material and he would not have purchased a small quantity of the material, as he was to honour commitments of his customers. By representing that they were in a position to supply 400 M.T. material, the petitioners deceived the complainant and, thus, caused him wrongful loss and disrepute.

After preliminary evidence was recorded the trial Court found that there existed sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 420/120B IPC and thus, they were summoned to face trial for these offences.

I have heard Shri P.K. Wasu, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.L. Sharma. Advocate for the petitioners and Shri S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate with Miss Karan Randhawa, Advocate for the respondent.

It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners were engaged in the business of synthetic waste and had been supplying this material to the complainant when a dispute arose which led to filing of two suits against the complainant one in Bombay City Civil Court and the other in the High Court of Bombay for the recovery of amounts due from the complainant. The respondent Birbal filed the complaint at Ludhiana with a view to pressurise the petitioners to withdraw those suits. The petitioners'' did not yield to the pressure of the respondent so he filed complains Annexure P/1. This complaint was a counter blast and was meant to harass and humiliate the petitioners. The complaint did not disclose any cheating or conspiracy to cheat on the part of the petitioner''s and in fact the controversy, if any, was of civil nature and did not justify the filing of the complaint.

It was argued on behalf of the respondent that this Court isonly to ascertain with reference to the allegations made in the complaint Annexure P/1 whether on the basis of these allegations a cognizable offence has been committed. While doing so the allegations are to be taken at their face value and accepted in their entirity. It was asserted that the allegations made in the complaint Annexure P/1 made out a primafacie case for the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC. I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is not tenable and the allegations made in the complaint even primafacie did not make out the offences, to face trial for which the petitioners were summoned. A perusal of the complaint shows that the petitioners entered into a contract to supply synthetic waste to the complainant and if the terms and conditions of the agreement were not complied with then the complainant could have recourse to a civil Court and in fact he has already filed civil Suit No. 339 of 10.8.1989 against the petitioners regarding which mention has been made in Annexure P/2.

In the present petition the petitioners alleged that as a dispute had occurred between the parties regarding the supply of synthetic waste, they had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 31,94043 in Bombay City Civil Court against the respondent on 6.9.1989. Another summary suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,17,617.68 was filed in the High Court of Bombay on 26.6.1989. These allegations are not controverted by the respondent by filing any reply. It is thus evident that after the petitioners filed suits against the respondent, he came up with the complaint Annexure P/1 which is dated 21.12.1990. In the case of Mangat Ram and another v. Ram Bhagat Chamoria, 1982 PLR 685, it was held :

"Doubtless for quashing the criminal proceedings, this Court has normally to confine itself to the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence, if any, adduced in support thereof : but in a given case, in order to avoid abuse of the process of the court, the interests of justice require undisputed and established facts to be given due weight."

In instant case since it is not disputed that suits regarding recovery of money were filed by the petitioner against the respondent in Courts at Bombay before the present complaint, the contention of the petitioner that the compliant was prompted by an ulterior motive to put pressure upon the petitioners to withdraw those suits and was, thus, an abuse of the process of the Court is valid. Moreover, when civil proceedings are already pending no useful purpose will be served by allowing criminal prosecution to continue. When the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, then initiation of Criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court and deserves to be quashed Singh and others v. Satyadev Tripathi, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 850 is an authority to that effect.

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that the criminal prosecution of the petitioners deserves to be quashed. I, therefore allow this petition and quash the complaint Annexure P/1 as well as summoning order Annexure P/2.