Jai Parkash vs Dinesh Dayal And Mayur Carpets (P) ...
1989 Latest Caselaw 444 Del

JUDGMENT

R.L. Gupta, J.

(1) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings in a complaint dated 4-7-88 against the petitioner in which he has been summoned as an accused by order dated 15-11-88 has arisen in the following circumstances:-

(2) The petitioner claims that he is a permanent resident of Bhadohi, District Varanasi, U.P. carrying on his business as a supplier of carpets under the name and style of M/s. Jaswal Carpet Co. since a number of years. M/s. Mayur Carpets (P) Ltd.. respondent No. 2 has a branch office at Bhadohi. Both the parties had entered into a written agreement on 9th April, 1987 by which the petitioner was to supply unwashed and un-finished carpets to the Branch office of respondent No. 2 at Bhadohi. Accordingly the petitioner continued to supply such carpets to respondent No. 2 from time to time and also had been rendering proper accounts. However, disputes arose between the parties which led to the issuance of two notices dated 2nd February, 1988 and 2nd March, 1988 through Shri Surendra Nath Varma, Advocate, Gian Pur, Varanasi on behalf of respondent No. 2. Thereafter some terms and conditions of the original agreement dated 9th April, 1987 were varied by another subsequent agreement dated 4th February, 1988. The grievance of the petitioner is that both these agreements actually showed that they were entered into at Bhadohi and disputes arose primarily because of the refusal of respondent No. 2 at Bhadohi to fully and completely account for the carpets supplied by the petitioner and to maintain accounts in accordance with agreement dated 4-2-1988. Therefore, instead of resolving the disputes at their own end. respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code. against the petitioner on 4-7-88 at New Delhi in respect of the disputes which are primarily of a civil nature. Moreover, it is alleged that the New Delhi courts have no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Hence this petition for quashing of the proceedings and order of issuance of summons against the petitioner.

(3) I have heard Mr. J. L. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. C. Mathur, learned counsel for the respondent.

(4) The first written agreement between the parties is dated 9th April, 1987. A photo copy of this agreement as well as its English translation is placed on the file. There is no specific mention about the place where this agreement was entered into. However, it is referred in the beginning of this agreement that M/s. Mayur Carpets (P) Ltd. (respondent No. 2) has branch office at bye-pass road Bhadohi, District Varanasi and the place of business of the second party i.e. the petitioner is also shown as Bhadohi. It refers to an earlier agreement of September. 1986 on certain terms and conditions. One of the relevant terms is term No. 1, according to which the woollen handmade carpets were to be supplied by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 at its Bhadohi office. When the disputes arose between the parties. they entered into a second agreement dated 4-2-1988, a copy of that agreement is at page 24 of the file. In its heading, it clearly mentions that this agreement was reached at Bhadohi between the parties. The attesting witness Murari Lal also belonged to Bhadohi. Various invoices which are Annexures 'E' from page 27 to 45 issued by the petitioner show that they were issuer to M/s, Mayur Carpets P. Ltd.. Bhadohi. The copy of the complaint is Annexure 'G' which is at pages 49 to 53 of the file. In para-5 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the accused (petitioner) was introduced to the complainant (respondent No. 2) by his father Shri Murari Lal who was a very close friend of the Managing Director of the complainant company. Shri Inderjit Singh. It definitely therefore refers to same Shri Murari Lal who is an attesting witness of the agreement dated 4-3-88 between the parties and he is a resident of Bhadohi. Therefore, an inference can very well be drawn that both the parties were introduced to each other by a person who is also a resident of Bhadohi. It may further be noted that along with the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2. the petitioner filed Annexure 'K' which is a photo copy of the civil suit filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner and others in the court of Civil Judge. Gian Pur, Varanasi. In para-30 of this plaint while narrating the circumstances as to how the cause or action arose in favor of plaintiff (respondent No, 2). It is clearly stated that respondent No. 2 deposited Rs. 12,000.00 in the account of the petitioner in the Bank of India at Bhadohi on 4-2-88 when the agreement was arrived and signed by the parties within the jurisdiction of that court i.e. the court at Bhadohi.

(5) All the above referred circumstances, therefore, clearly indicate that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bhadohi, the delivery of the woollen carpets was to be given by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 at Bhadohi, When the disputes arose between the parties then they were resolved and settled into the shape of another agreement dated 4-2-88 between the parties at Bhadohi where respondent No. 2 has its branch office. Simply because respondent No. 2 has its head office at New Delhi, in my opinion, this circumstance in itself will not furnish any ground to respondent No. 2 to take recourse to criminal proceedings against the petitioner at New Delhi because the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bhadohi. There is no denial about this fact that respondent No. 2 has no branch office at Bhadohi. In fact, it stands rather clearly proved and rather it is also indicated by respondent No. 2 in the complaint itself. Tn the above circumstances, therefore, we have to see whether respondent No. 2 can be permitted to have recourse to criminal proceedings against the petitioner at New Delhi. Similar question arose in the, case of Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia Vs. State of Punjab & another, 1986 Chandigarh Criminal cases 302.(l) In the case of Harjeet Singh Ahluwalia (supra) the facts were that the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Delhi. The dowry articles were, therefore, entrusted at Delhi. The wife was living at Amritsar after breaking of the marriage. She lodged a Fir at Police Station Civil Lines. Amritsar under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code against her husband. It was held that the wife was not entitled to recover her articles of dowry at Amritsar or the husband was also not required to return her dowry articles or its accounting for at Amritsar. In the present case also, it will be seen that the agreement between the parties i.e. the Company of the petitioner and the branch office of respondent No. 2 at Bhadohi was entered into at Bhadohi. Simply because the head office of respondent No. 2 is located at New Delhi. it will not furnish any cause for filing any criminal complaint against the petitioner to respondent No. 2 at New Delhi because there were actually no dealings between the company of the petitioner at Bhadohi and the head office of respondent No.2 at New Delhi. It was precisely for this reason that respondent No. 2 filed a civil suit against the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Gian Pur, Varanasi who had the territorial jurisdiction against the petitioner. The fact that the agreement was entered into at Bhadohi is not at all stated in the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 at New Delhi. Similarly when Shri Tejinder Singh who is one of the Directors of respondent No. 2 company appeared as a witness in support of the complaint, did not state as to at which place the agreement was entered into between the parties. He examined two witnesses in support of his claim. One is Kanhiya Lal who as an Accountant of respondent No. 2 in its office at Delhi. He deposed that be used to maintain account relating to the transactions between the parties and he, therefore, proved certain entries made by him in a register. Public Witness -3 is one Shri Jag Narain who is a resident of Bhadohi. He works as a munim in another concern at Bhadohi. He knew that there was an agreement between the parties for supply of manufactured products because their office is situated close to office of their company. This will indicate that the agreement must have been entered into at Bhadohi and that was the reason that Jag Narain. witness knew about it.

(6) Upon a consideration of the fact that the agreement dated 4-2-1988 between the parties clearly indicates that it was entered into between them at Bhadohi, that the various invoices were sent by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 in its branch office at Bhadohi and the factum of a civil suit having been filed for recovery of amount by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner at Gian Pur, Varanasi within the territorial jurisdiction of which Bhadohi is situated. I am of the view that this criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner at New Delhi could not be so filed for want of jurisdiction. Clearly if the complaint is filed by a party against another at a place which has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. I am of the view that it amounts to abuse of process of the Court. The Court should not be made an instrument of compelling a party to come to a place far away from his own place, to submit to the jurisdiction of a court which actually has none. I am. therefore. of the view that the proceedings instituted by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the shape of a criminal complaint under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and the summoning of the petitioner by the trial court are without jurisdiction and there is no alternative but to quash such proceedings. The proceedings. therefore, pending before the learned trial court are quashed.