Chattisgarh High Court
Aditya Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 June, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No. 2574 of 2023
Aditya Kumar Singh S/o Shashi Shekhar Singh Aged About 32
Years R/o Indu Imagica, House Number 67, Chatauna Police
Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Station House Officer Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Rakesh Kumar Vyas S/o Nand Kishore Vyas Aged About 50 Years
R/o House Number A-1 Royal Elegance Opposite To Maruti Arena
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the petitioner : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate.
For respondent No.1 & 2/State : Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.3 : Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 27.06.2024
1. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 0471/2023 registered at Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, CG for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC against the petitioner and entire criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR. 2
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner has worked as a Plant Manager in the RC Beaton Mix Plant and was terminated from the services due to assault on the worker in the company and his ill behavior. It is also alleged that he has taken a Jeep Compass of the company bearing registration number C.G. 10 AX 1559 which was registered in the name of company, which was not returned by him till date.
3. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and respondent No. 3 were the partners of the RC Beaton Mix Plant and he was getting 10-30% of the amount as profit for the same. However, in the year 2018-2019 a dispute arose between the parties on account of respondent No.3 not giving the profit to the petitioner, since the respondent No. 3 refused to provide the money, however the petitioner to keep the car bearing number CG 10 AX 1559 as the EMI of the car was paid by the company on the joint basis and since year 2019-2020 petitioner was liable to get an amount of around Rs.55,00,000/-, however, the respondent No. 3 to avoid the said amounts had tried to implicate the petitioner in a false case. Therefore, the alleged offence under Section 408 has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 0471/2023. Hence this petition.
4. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is very clear from the FIR, that none of the 3 ingredients are attracted against the petitioner in light of the correct facts. He also submits that in his personal capacity he has no role or involvement in the alleged incident and the offences alleged in the impugned FIR. In fact, there has not been any conversation, whatsoever, with respondent No.3 at any point of time. There are no allegations against the petitioner and there is no material which even remotely indicates the involvement or any act of the petitioner leading of commissioning of alleged offence and the essential ingredients of alleged offences is not made out against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash the impugned FIR.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent oppose the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
7. Perusal of FIR indicates that there was some commercial transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.3/ complainant. From perusal of FIR, it can be safely gathered that it is a business/ commercial transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.3/complainant, therefore, it is a case of commercial transaction and appears to be purely a civil dispute. 4
8. Dealing with the issue in Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401 the Supreme Court observed that there was no criminality on part of the accused and a civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process of law. Relevant Para of the said judgment is quoted as below:-
"10.Having heard the appellant as party in person and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused as well as the State of Kerala and considering the judgment¹ and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has not committed any error in quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant. Even considering the allegations and averments made in the FIR and the case behalf of the appellant, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of month's notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by 5 the High Court."
9. Recently, in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 the Supreme Court reiterated its view that a commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. Relevant para of the said judgment is quoted as below:-
"20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding, as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram (supra). The same proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate[(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The learned Magistrate's order issuing summons records the background of the case in rather longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of summons,detailed reasoning as to why a Magistrate is issuing summons,however, is not necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that the allegations made by the complainant do not give rise to the offences for which the appellant has been summoned for trial. A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. The learned Magistrate here failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and the High Court also failed to exercise its 6 jurisdiction under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent abuse of the power of the Criminal Court.
21. It is true that the appellant could seek discharge in course of the proceeding itself before the concerned Court, but here we find that no case at all has been made out that would justify invoking the machinery of the Criminal Courts. The dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality."
10. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned First Information Report No.0471/2023 registered at Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, CG for the offence punishable under Section 408 of IPC against the petitioner and entire criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR are hereby quashed.
Advised Sd/- Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Kamde