S.K. Pahwa vs Manoj Kumar
2009 Latest Caselaw 2009 Del

               HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

                Judgment reserved on: April 29, 2009
                Judgment delivered on: May 13, 2009

+                      Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007
                                 &
                       Crl. M.A. No. 1115 of 2007

%      S.K. Pahwa                           ....           Petitioner
                            Through:   Ms. Nisha Narayan, Advocate

                            Versus

       Manoj Kumar                                .... Respondent
                            Through:   Sarfaraz Khan, Advocate

COARM

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Gaur

1.     Whether the Reporters of local papers
       may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.     Whether the judgment should be
       reported in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. Petitioner is a Director of M/s Pahwa International Private

Limited and he has been summoned as an accused vide

impugned order of 8th August, 2005, in a criminal complaint No.

1208/2001, titled as „Manoj Kumar vs. S.K. Pahwa‟ for the offence

under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred

to as the „IPC‟).

Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007 Page 1

2. Petitioner claims to be a senior citizen and a person of high

repute, having high esteem in business circles and is said to be

the pioneer of Pahwa Group of Companies. The allegations

against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint are that

respondent/complainant company- M/s Cyber Power (I) Limited

had supplied diesel generator sets to petitioner‟s company, i.e.

M/s Pahwa International Private Limited and as per the terms and

conditions specified, ninety per cent of the value of these four

diesel generator sets were paid by the petitioner‟s company to

the respondent/complainant company. However, the balance

payment of ten per cent was not released because the sub-

standard parts of the diesel generator sets were not replaced.

This led the filing of criminal complaint under Sections

406/420/506/120-B of the IPC by the respondent/ complainant.

3. Respondent/complainant alongwith the aforesaid complaint,

had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and

the trial court called for a report on this application and as per

report, Annexure P-2, the local police informed the trial court that

no FIR has been registered on respondent‟s complaint as the

subject matter of the complaint is a civil dispute. The trial court,

upon perusal of the aforesaid Report, Annexure P-2 of the local

police, vide order of 16th August, 2004, directed the respondent/

Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007 Page 2 complainant to lead evidence and accordingly respondent/

complainant deposed before the trial court and copy of his

deposition has been placed on record as Annexure P-3.

Thereafter, the trial court vide impugned order of 8th August,

2005, Annexure P-4, has chosen to summon the petitioner for the

offence under Section 506 of the IPC and not for the offences

under Section 406/420 of the IPC.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision

of the Apex Court in „Pepsi Food Limited and another v. Special

Judicial Magistrate and others‟ 1998 SCC (Crl.) 1400 to contend

that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious

matter and the summoning order must reflect that the Magistrate

has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law

applicable thereto. The grievance of the petitioner is that the

petitioner has been summoned vide impugned order in

mechanical manner by the trial court and without any application

of mind. It is pointed out that the allegations of the respondent/

complainant of petitioner going to the office of the

respondent/complainant and of threatening the respondent/

complainant with dire consequences, is not supported by the

police report of 15th August, 2005. It is contended on behalf of the

petitioner that the bald allegations of respondent/ complainant of

Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007 Page 3 petitioner threatening him is all concocted and infact the stand of

the petitioner‟s company has been all through out that it is willing

to make the balance payment on replacement of sub-standard

AMF Panel and Canopy of the generators, supplied by the

respondent / complainant. Lastly, it is submitted by learned

Counsel for the petitioner that it is highly improbable and

unbelievable that a person of petitioner‟s status, would go to

respondent‟s office to threaten him with dire consequences,

merely because the respondent/complainant has alleged to have

demanded the balance payment. Thus, quashing of the criminal

complaint, Annexure P-1, is sought in this petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention

of this court to the statement of the respondent recorded by the

trial court to show that there is a specific allegation against the

petitioner that he had visited the office of the respondent/

complainant with three or four gundas on 6th August, 2004, at

about 3:00 p.m., in the presence of Tarun Sahni, Tilak Raj and

Ganpati Sahni and had threatened the respondent/ complainant

with dire consequences. It is also pointed out that the statement

of the eye witnesses- Tarun Sahni( CW-2) corroborates the

version of the respondent/ complainant.

Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007 Page 4

6. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in

AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1568 & 1997 IV AD (Delhi) 649 to

contend that when it is alleged that a threat has been given to

give up a claim of money due, then prima facie offence under

Section 506 is made out and the FIR cannot be quashed.

7. After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the

record of this case, I find the allegations which are said to be

constituting an offence under Section 506 of the IPC, deserves to

be noticed and they are as under:-

"The accused threatened the complainant to the effect of loss of the life, liberty and property, when visited office of complainant with other three-four gundas on 6th August, 2004, at about 3:00 p.m., in the presence of Tarun Sahni, Tilak Raj and Ganpati Sahni".

8. Tarun Sahni (CW-2) has dittoed the aforesaid averments

made by the respondent/claimant before the trial court. The

averment made in the complaint, Annexure P-1, regarding the

offence under Section 506 of the IPC, are contained in Para-10,

which reads as under:-

"The accused company has been continuously

threatening to face the dire consequences if any

demand of payment in respect of the generators in

Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007 Page 5 future. He also threatened to beat and disrepute the

Complainant in Complainant‟s office. In addition Mr.

S.K. Pahwa director of the accused company also

threatened the Complainant to the effect of loss of

the life liberty and property. When he visited office of

the Complainant on 06.08.2004 at about 3:00 PM in

the presence of one Sh. Tilak Raj and another Sh.

Ganpat Saini."

9. Aforesaid averments, prima facie, disclose commission of a

cognizable offence and in a somewhat similar case of „Bhim Sen

Garg vs. State‟ 1997 IV AD (Delhi) 649, threats were extended

to the Complainant to give up the claim of money due and the FIR

for the offence under section 506 of Indian Penal Code was not

quashed by this court.

10. In the case of „Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of

Uttaranchal & Others‟, AIR 2008 SC 251, Apex Court has

outlined the scope of the exercise of powers under section 482 of

Cr. P.C. in the following words:-

"Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this

Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007 Page 6 section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

11. At this stage, the truthfulness or the falsity of the

allegations leveled against the Petitioners cannot be gone into

and while taking the allegations on their face value, it cannot be

said that the ingredients of the offence under section 506 of

Indian Penal Code are lacking. No case for exercise of inherent

powers to quash the FIR in question is made out.

12. This petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed with the

observations that anything stated herein shall have no bearing on

merits at trial.

13. This petition as well as the pending application stands

disposed of accordingly.

Sunil Gaur, J.

May 13, 2009
rs/pkb




Crl. M.C. No. 311 of 2007                                         Page 7