Dhirendra Kumar v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Dilip Kumar Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2176 of 2018 Dhirendra Kumar ..... … Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.Dilip Kumar Singh -------- …. …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND For the Petitioner For the State For the O.P. No.2 07/10th July, 2024 ------ : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P. : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Shahid Yunus, Advocate -------- 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 are present. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including PCR Case No. 249 of 2017 as well as the order taking cognizance date 11th December, 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar has taken cognizance of the offence and issued summon upon the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are exclusively civil in nature. It is further submitted that neither from the allegations made in the complaint nor from the statement of the enquiry witnesses, who were examined in support of the complaint under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, no alleged offence is made out against the
Decision
petitioner. In view of the above contended to quash the entire proceeding of the criminal case which has been initiated against the petitioner before the court concerned. 4. The learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that from the very allegations made in the complaint, the offence under Sections 420 read with 120-B of I.P.C is made out because all the four accused persons under a conspiracy have committed the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. 5. From perusal of the complaint which is Annexure-1 of this petition, it is found that the complainant—Dilip Kumar Singh had lodged the complaint against three accused persons including the petitioner, who is accused no.2 in the complaint. With these averment that complainant is a businessman and in connection with the business of the company he was appointed as authorized dealer. The company has informed the complainant that for sale of per power tiller, the complainant will get the amount of Rs.15,000/- as commission and Rs.1,000/- servicing charges, besides this, beneficiary charge and demonstration charge were also payable. The complainant himself and through the help of witnesses and others made effort by visiting different villages, village markets, fair and farmers and distributed handbill, poster, banner and after huge expense sold several power tillers and after repeated prayer for payment, only Rs.7,000/- in place of Rs.9,82,767/- was made to the complainant. It is further alleged that the company has also not supplied the good quality of power tillers to the complainant, whereby the complainant also suffered the mental, physical and economic agony on account of the criminal conspiracy by the accused persons. In view of the above fact, the complainant— Dilip Kumar Singh prayed to summon the accused persons for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. In support of this complaint, the complainant Dilip Kumar was examined under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and also examined the two inquiry witnesses, namely, Munni Pandey and Rana Jitendra Kumar, who supported the allegations made in the complaint. 7. The learned trial court took cognizance vide order dated 11th - 2 - Cr.M.P. No.2176 of 2018 December, 2017 summoning all the three accused including the petitioner for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. From bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, it is found that the dispute between the parties is exclusively contractual. Further from the allegations made in the complaint, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. If there is breach of any contract between the complainant and the other accused including the petitioner for the same remedy is available to him before the Civil Court or any other competent court. It appears that this complaint has been lodged giving the criminal colour just to pressurize the petitioner. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of case law that tendency of initiating criminal cases in regard to the exclusively civil matter should be deprecated. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Veena Mittal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 110 at paragraph 6 has held as under : “6. In this backdrop, the finding of the High Court to the effect that there is no specific allegation against the second and third respondents or that, as the mother and sister of the bridegroom, they would not be either beneficiaries or have a direct link with the perpetrators of the crime is not based on cogent material or a reading of the FIR. It is well-settled that at the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, the allegations in the FIR must be read as they stand and it is only if on the face of the allegations that no offence, as alleged, has been made out, that the Court may be justified in exercising its jurisdiction to quash. The parameters of the jurisdiction under Section 482 have been reiterated in a consistent line of authorities and, at this stage, it may be material to refer to the recent decision of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 15 April 2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No 27511 of 2018.” 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Anr. versus the State of Karnataka & anr. reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 228 at paragraph 6 has held as under : - 3 - Cr.M.P. No.2176 of 2018 “6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. (2021) 14 SCC 626, observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising 8 the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 11. In the case in hand, from the allegations made in the complaint, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner because the dispute between the parties being exclusively of civil nature. 12. In view of the discussions made hereinabove as well as keeping in mind the judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to quash the entire criminal proceeding of this case. 13. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is, hereby, allowed and the entire criminal proceeding of this case including P.C.R. Case No.249 of 2017 as well as the order taking cognizance dated 11th December, 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Deoghar is, hereby - 4 - Cr.M.P. No.2176 of 2018 quashed, and set aside. 14. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Rohit/AFR (Subhash Chand, J.) - 5 - Cr.M.P. No.2176 of 2018