Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 v. Sanjay Kumar Bansal

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the Criminal Complaint, titled as, 'Sanjay Kumar Bansal Vs.Rupesh Puri and others', under Sections 120-B, 323, 387, 406, 420, 468, 471, 477 and 506 IPC (Annexure P3), the summoning order dated 08.01.09 Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 2 (Annexure P4), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, and all the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, has been filed by the petitioners.

The facts, in brief, are that, petitioners No. 1 to 3, in conspiracy with each other approached the complainant, in the month of May-June, 2007, at Ferozepur, with the representation, that they were carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of ready made clothes and hosiery goods. They further represented to the complainant, that on account of conducive location of his (complainant's) showroom, they were desirous of having him, as their authorized retail agent/outlet for the area of Ferozepur City and Ferozepur Cantt, in respect of the goods, manufactured and supplied by M/s Hues Clothing Company Private Limited. Petitioners No. 1 to 3, represented themselves to be incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of petitioner No. 4. The complainant also paid a sum of Rs. 5 lacs, to the accused, vide cheques, as security. It was further stated that the accused, in connivance with each other, and with dishonest and fraudulent intention, got prepared a tri-party agreement for the abovesaid Hues Clothing Company Private Limited, between the complainant, and their Master Franchisee i.e. M/s Emm Kay Gallery, situated at Ludhiana. The said agreement was signed by Ajay Singla, on behalf of M/s Emm Kay Gallery, the complainant, on behalf of M/s B.T. Showroom, and Rupesh Puri, one of the accused, on behalf of M/s Hues Clothing Company Private Limited. It was further stated that, initially, the supply of the goods, Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 3 was started by the accused, through their master franchise and the complainant diligently and bonafidely being an honest person, started rendering the true accounts of the sales, made by him, to the accused, from time to time, but, suddenly in April, 2008, the supply of the goods, controlled by the accused was aborted, as a result whereof, the complainant, suffered heavy financial loss, as also loss of his goodwill and reputation, in trading circle and before his customers.

It was further stated that, on 04.08.08, the complainant, went to the accused alongwith the aforesaid agreement, and requested them to immediately resume the supply of the goods, but they demanded, from him, to sign the new agreement, the terms whereof, were completely biased and adverse to his interest. It was further stated that, when the complainant, refused to sign the new agreement, Rupesh Puri and Amit Puri, accused, snatched the original agreement, from his possession, without his consent and destroyed the same. It was further stated that Santosh Puri, accused, and some of his employees, caught hold of the complainant, by his arms, and when he resisted, he was threatened with dire consequences. It was further stated that the complainant, demanded the amount of security, from the accused, but they flatly refused to return the same and told that there was no agreement with him.

It was further stated that the accused, had intentionally and dishonestly got the tri-party agreement executed, just with a view to cheat the complainant and to mis-appropriate the amount of security. Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 4 It was further stated that, even the complainant, was threatened to be got killed, by the accused. It was further stated that the complainant, out of fear, returned to Ferozepur, and made repeated requests, to the accused, to return the security amount, but in vain. It was further stated that the accused without giving any intimation, to the complainant, and without terminating the agreement of settling the account, opened new showroom, at Ferozepur, causing loss, to him of security, business and the amount, spent by him, on the showroom.

It was further stated that, on 19.12.08, at about 4.00 PM, Rupesh Puri and Santosh Puri, accused, came to the showroom of the complainant, at Ferozepur City, where Vijay Aggarwal son of Radhey Sham Aggarwal, resident of Ferozepur City, was also present, and, in his presence, the accused, told the complainant, to get lifted the stocks, lying there, but when he asked the accused for the refund of the security amount, there was exchange of hot words, as a result whereof, the nearby shop-keepers also reached there. It was further stated that, thereafter, both the accused, escaped from the spot. It was further stated that the complainant also approached the Police, with regard to the aforesaid episode, but in vain. Ultimately, the aforesaid complaint was filed.

After recording preliminary evidence, and, on going through the documents, on record, the trial Court, summoned the accused, to face trial, for the offences, punishable under Sections 120-B, 323, 387, 406, 420, 468, 471, 477 and 506 IPC. Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 5

Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition, has been filed by the petitioners.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the dispute, between the parties, was of civil nature, but the same was converted into a dispute of criminal nature. He further submitted that the allegations, contained in the complaint, did not constitute any criminal offence. He further submitted that the criminal complaint, was filed, against the petitioners, by the respondent, with malafide intention. He further submitted that, since the order dated 08.01.09 (Annexure P4), vide which, the petitioners, were summoned, was passed by the trial Court, without application of mind, it was liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, against the order dated 08.01.09, vide which, the petitioners, were summoned, a revision-petition, was maintainable. He further submitted that, no revision-petition, was filed, by the petitioners, against the order summoning them. He further submitted that the petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., provides an extra- ordinary remedy. He further submitted that when an ordinary remedy, is available, to the petitioners, they cannot resort to the extra-ordinary remedy.

After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 6 opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The summoning order dated 08.01.09, vide which, the accused/petitioners, were summoned by the trial Court, is revisable. No revision-petition was admittedly filed by the petitioners, against the order dated 08.01.09. While defining the powers of the High Court, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Apex Court, in State, through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru and others 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 (SC), held that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not to be resorted to, if there is a specific provision, in the Code or any other enactment, for redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party. In view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, by the Apex Court, no resort to the extraordinary remedy, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could be made, in view of the ordinary remedy of revision, available under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As stated above, the ordinary remedy under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not availed of by the petitioners. Had the revision-petition been filed, against the order, summoning the petitioners, as accused, in the event of acceptance of the same, by the Court of Sessions, the proceedings, as a whole, would have terminated. In view of the above, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not maintainable. The same is, thus, liable to be dismissed, being not maintainable. Criminal Misc. No. M-22986 of 2008 7

For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 22986 of 2008, being not maintainable, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. The petitioners shall, however, be at liberty to resort to any other legal remedy, available to them.

Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copy thereof, to the Court concerned.

26.02.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE