Navin R. Shah v. The State of Jharkhand and Another
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI ---- Cr.M.P. No. 542 of 2014 ---- Navin R. Shah .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties With Cr.M.P. No. 2356 of 2013 ---- M/s ShimnitUtsch India Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioner -- Versus -- The State of Jharkhand and Another .... Opposite Parties ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the State :- Mr. P. D. Agarwal, Advocate ---- 6/12.07.2023 On repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2. On 15.6.2023, the O.P.No.2 was not present and on that day, for providing one more opportunity to the O.P.No.2, the matter was adjourned and while it was adjourned, it has been observed that if the O.P.No.2 will not appear on the next date of listing, these matters shall be decided in absence of the O.P.No.2, and accordingly, these matters are being heard on merit. 2. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 3. These petitions have been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 09.06.2011, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1441 of 2010, T.R. No.1415 of 2014, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 4. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the 2 prosecution case arises out of complaint petition filed by one Gurupreet Singh partner and representative of M/S Sheelcon India (O.P. No.2) on or about 11.10.2010 and in nut shell, the complaint is that, the accused is a registered Company and is being presented through its Director and representatives. That it is further alleged that the complainant’s company and accused company entered in to an agreement on 08.04.2004 through its Director and representatives, accused company as prime dealer for carrying out the operation of embossing the number plates in the wake of amendment of Rule 50 of Motor Vehicles Rules made in the year 2001 whereby the embossing of High Security Registration Plates (HSRP) was made applicable, for which the complainant’s company was appointed as Prime dealer at Giridih for business/ marketing Number Plates for vehicles for which the accused company was required to supply machinery and blank registration plates etc. and for said purpose the complainant’s company paid Rs.12,00,000/-(rupees twelve lacs), again the complainant’s company paid Rs.1,22,080 (rupees one lac twenty two thousand and eighty) for the cost of the supply of the said plates, thus the complainant’s company paid altogether 13,22,080/-( Rupees thirteen Lacs twenty two thousand and eighty) under the aforesaid against and for the said business. It is further alleged that the accused company did not supply the machinery and said plates and the stipulated period of agreement and extended period expired. It is further alleged that on 24.04.06 through its letter and assured the complainant’s company that the process for implementation of HSRP is going on in the most of the states and is likely to commence in a few states in a couple of months but failed and ultimately assured to refund the amount and vide letter dated 04.01.07 confirmed that all the refunds will be processes on or by 30.04.07. Hence this complaint. 5. Mr. Dubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3 petitioners submits that the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.542 of 2014 was the Director of the company namely M/s ShimnitUtsch India Pvt. Ltd. and the company is the petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.2356 of 2013. He further submits that on the basis of the agreement the present complaint case has been filed. He submits that there was an agreement between the petitioner company and the O.P.no.2 for supply of number plates for the vehicles and for which, it was required to supply the machinery and the blank registration plates with certain terms and conditions. He further submits that the company has already provided the machinery, however, some delay has occurred due to change in the policy of the government. He submits that there is no intention from the very beginning of cheating, however, the company has already paid Rs.6 lacs to the O.P.No.2. He submits that in that agreement, there is arbitration clause being clause no.56. He submits that inspite of that, the present case has been filed which is civil in nature. 6. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the learned court has taken congnizance on the basis of the complaint case and looking in to the solemn affirmation. 7. The Court has perused the contents of the complaint case and finds that it is arising out of an agreement which is for supply of machinery and the number plates for the vehicles. It has been alleged that there was delay in supplying the machinery. The averments made in the paragraph no.6 of the complaint itself it has been disclosed that Rs.3 lacs has been paid by the company and there is averment made in paragraph no.24 of the petition that a sum of Rs.6 lacs has been paid by the company to the O.P.no.2. Further the agreement is on the record and clause 56 is the arbitration clause for redressal of any dispute. Merely breach of contract is not a ground for initiating criminal proceeding. It 4 appears that if any dispute is there, that is for civil wrong and for which the criminal case is filed. Section 415 of the IPC speaks of that if from the very inception the intention was there of cheating, then only section 420 IPC is attracted. 8. In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis and also considering that for civil wrong, the criminal case has been filed, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 09.06.2011, in connection with Complaint Case No. 1441 of 2010, T.R. No.1415 of 2014, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih are quashed. 9. 10.
Decision
Both these petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) SI/,