The High Court of Jharkhand quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 379 and 120B of the IPC and held that the opposite party was unnecessarily dragging the matter and if any case is made out against the petitioners i.e. civil in nature and mere breach of contract and in every case, criminality cannot be fastened upon the accused persons.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed the present petition seeking the quashing of entire criminal proceedings against him in a case registered under sections 406, 420, 379 and 120B of the IPC and the order passed under Section 156(3) CrPC for lodging the FIR.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the allegations made in the complaint are in terms of an agreement for the sale of land, however, the land in question n was transferred in favour of the Company by way of paying the sum of Rs.9 Lakhs in favour of the complainant and the Company has already provided him with the job at Kolkata which was not accepted by the respondent and despite the opportunity provided by this Court and offer of appointment provided to the opposite party, he had not accepted the same and has filed the complaint case unnecessarily and if there was any case, that is the civil but criminal case had been filed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that in the complaint itself, the letter of assurance is annexed, wherein, the terms and conditions are disclosed and one of the terms and conditions was to provide employment to the opposite party but the party is being unnecessarily harassed and the land in question has already been transferred in favour of the Company and he still had not been provided employment. It is further contended that the case of criminality is made out and this Court may not interfere at this stage and when mens rea is there, criminal case and civil case both can go simultaneously and the job provided was a low-grade employment.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that it was clear that the opposite party was unnecessarily dragging this matter and if any case is made out against the petitioners i.e. civil in nature and mere breach of contract and in every case, criminality cannot be fastened upon the accused persons. The court further referred to the judgment in M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan and another where it was held that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
The court concluded that continuance of the criminal proceedings in view of the fact that the company had already offered employment would lead to abuse of the process of law.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd. and ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 592 of 2013
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Kumar Vimal and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Fahad Allam and Ms. Amrita Sinha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
