Allahabad High Court
Amrendra Kumar And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 15 May, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87431-DB
Reserved on 02.5.2024
Delivered on 15.5.2024
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11976 of 2023
Petitioner :- Amrendra Kumar And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Agarwal Archi Piyush,Varad Nath
Counsel for Respondent :- Kunwar Mayank Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)
1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Varad Nath and Sri Harshvardhan, learned counsels for the petitioners; Sri Kunwar Mayank Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3; the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material on record.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 19.7.2023 registered as FIR No. 0365 of 2023, under Section 420 IPC and Section 66-D of IT Act at P.S. Phase-1, Sector -5 District Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar U.P. and all subsequent/ consequential proceedings drawn against the petitioners.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.1 and 2 not to take any coercion measures against the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR.
(c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
(d) Award costs of the petition to the petitioners throughout.
3. On 8.8.2023 the following interim order was passed by this Court :-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the first informant and learned AGA for the State-respondents.
2. This writ petition seeks quashing of the First Information Report dated 19.07.2023 giving rise to FIR No.0365 of 2023, under Section-420 IPC and Section-66D of IT Act, Police Station-Phase 1, Sector-5, District-Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.
3. Contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute between the parties arises out of a contract. Insofar as non-payment of the contractual amount is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the first informant admits that he is availing alternative remedy available to him.
4. Prima facie, the dispute between the parties appears to be a civil dispute.
5. Matter requires consideration.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the first informant prays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter. Petitioners shall have two weeks time thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
7. List after the expiry of the aforesaid period.
8. Till the next listing or till submission of police report under Section-173(2) Cr.P.C., whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be arrested consequent to the impugned FIR. "
4. Till date no counter has been filed in this case either by the State-respondents or contesting respondent no.3.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned FIR has been lodged by the respondent no.3 alleging that petitioners have forged and fabricated the stock register, which was being maintained to keep a record of the lights being installed by the partnership firm of the respondent no.3 as per the work orders dated 11.2.2019 and 28.5.2019 issued by the company. There is allegation in the FIR that the informant is resident of Mohali, State of Punjab. His firm, Genesis Engineering Company, entered into contract with Tata Power Company Limited, Noida for changing street lights on 8.2.2019. The Project Head, Amrendra Kumar, informed that the work of changing street lights has been completed in December, 2020 and Ludhiana Corporation had given completion letter in May, 2021. Even after completing the work, the Tata Power Company Limited did not make payment of constructed amount to the informant. On being contacted Project Manager informed that there is deficiency in the lights installed, when lights have been issued more in number. The respondent no.3 demanded the copy of stock register, which is kept in the office at Noida, which was provided by means of whatsapp. It was found in the stock register that goods were given to some other company, but name of company of respondent no.3 in its place was mentioned and fabricated signatures were made. When email in this regard was sent to petitioner no.4, who is Accounts Head, he directed the respondent no.3 to deposit Rs. 8,45,44,269/- within five days. No details of the demands were given nor the aforesaid amount is visible in the balance sheet of the company. It was alleged in the FIR that all accused persons have fabricated the documents and are not paying Rs.8.5 crores payable by them to respondent no.3.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have supplied the disputed documents to the Investigating Officer. The respondent no.3 had already moved an application bearing No.CRM 47 of 2023, under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for summoning the petitioners and other officials of their company under Sections 420, 406, 467, 486 IPC. Therefore, present FIR is the second FIR, which is not in accordance with law. No offence was committed at District Gautam Buddh Nagar and therefore, impugned FIR lodged at Gautam Buddh Nagar is not in accordance with law. The work order was executed in favour of respondent no.3 at Ludhiana and stock register is also maintained at Ludhiana. The work was done by the petitioners' company at Ludhiana. No cause of action arose at Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.
7. Learned AGA for State- respondents and learned counsel for respondent no.3 have vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. They have submitted that since office of the company of the petitioners is at Gautam Buddh Nagar, therefore Noida police had jurisdiction to investigate the alleged offences.
8. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the ingredients of constituting the offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out against the petitioners since there is no allegation that there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners since beginning of the contract. There is no mention of person, whose signature was forged in the stock register in the FIR. Therefore, allegation in this regard cannot be investigated by the Investigating Officer. There is no allegation that any of the accused ever tried to deceive informant by making false or misleading representation. This Court finds that a purely contractual dispute has been controverted in a criminal case.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed before this Court the copy of the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. NIL of 2023 arising of Diary No. 48201 of 2023, whereby the dispute between the parties has been referred to sole arbitrator. Therefore it cannot be said that the prosecution of the petitioners is permissible. The parties can raise their grievances before the sole arbitrator for settlement. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs. State of West Bengal, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 305 has held that multiple complaints by the same party against the same accused in respect of the same incident is impermissible, which amounts to abuse of process of law. In the present case, complaint making same allegations was filed by the informant at Ludhiana. This case also comes within the Exception 1, 6 and 7 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Hayana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335.
10. In view of the above, the impugned FIR is hereby quashed.
11. This writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Ruchi Agrahari
(Surendra Singh-I,J.) (Siddharth, J.)
