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. 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
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.
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
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
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
