Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2184 Gua

                                                               Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010110412023




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : Crl.Pet./494/2023

         JITEN PRITHANI AND 6 ORS.
         S/O JAGADISH PRASAD AGARWALLA R/O SUBHASH COLONY
         BENGENAKHOWA GOLAGHAT 785621 ASSAM

         2: BINOD KUMAR AGARWALLA
          S/O SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA R/O BENGENAKHOWA G F ROAD
         GOLAGHAT PIN 785621 AND ALSO AT WARD NO. 13 GOLAGHAT ASSAM
         785621

         3: SRICHANDRA AGARWALLA
          S/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA R/O F 249 PRIYADARSHINI MARG
         SHYAM NAGAR JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 302019

         4: JAGADISH PRASAD AGARWALLA
          S/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA R/O SUBHASH COLONY
         BEGENAKHOWA GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785621

         5: KANHAIYALAL AGARWALLA
          S/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA R/O C/O TRADE WELL ASSAM SATI
         JAYMATI ROAD ATGAOH GUWAHATI 781001

         6: SANTOSH KUMAR AGARWALLA
          S/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA R/O C/O AUTO HARDWARE
         AGENCY BENGENAKHOWA G.F. ROAD GOLAGHAT 785621

         7: MONJU MODI @ MANJU DEVI AGARWALLA
          D/O LT. SATYANARAYAN AGARWALLA W/O MOTILAL AGARWALLA R/O
         SUBHASH COLONY BENGENAKHOWA GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 78562

         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
         REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM
                                                                        Page No.# 2/5

            2:LALIT KUMAR PRAJAPAT
             S/O BHOMARAM PRAJAPATI R/O JPR ROAD JORHAT ASSAM PIN 78500

Advocate for the Petitioner   : N CHAUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM




                                    BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                          ORDER

25.05.2023 Heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. PP for the State respondent No. 1.

2. This criminal petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of a police complaint dated 01.12.2022 lodged by the respondent No. 2 as the informant and which was received and registered as Golaghat P.S. Case No. 344/2022 under Section 120(B)/420/406/403/409 of the IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners No. 1 & 2 and the respondent No. 2 and mother of all the other petitioners had entered into a partnership deed for running a business of Tea Manufacturing by setting up a factory which was situated in Bengenakhowa in the district of Golaghat. The said partnership deed was executed on 01.11.2004 and it was agreed to run the business under name and style of ' M/s Premier Tea Industries' for manufacturing of black tea and such other businesses as may be mutually decided. The said partnership deed also contained an Arbitration Clause, which was to be invoked in case of any dispute that may arise between the partners. The said partnership deed was also partnership at will. The land on which the factory was situated belonged to the mother of the petitioners and consequent Page No.# 3/5

to the demise of the mother of the petitioners, the necessary formalities were initiated for updating the name of the legal heirs namely the petitioners in the said land. Meanwhile, because of certain disputes, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the respondent No. 2 and the District Judge, Golaghat vide order dated 28.03.2023 directed the parties not to alienate the property without prior permission of the competent Court. The parties were also permitted to appoint an Arbitrator in respect of their grievances and till constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, the respondents namely the petitioners herein were directed not to alienate the property.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while the matter was thus situated, the respondent No. 2 filed the instant police complaint making various allegations against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute if any between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 is purely of a civil nature and arising out of business being carried on between the parties. It is submitted that the allegations of any criminal act being undertaken by the petitioners does not prima facie appear upon a plain reading of the FIR.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relief upon to the Judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors, reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 and Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd and ors, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 to submit that in a given case where the dispute between the parties is of purely in civil nature, allowing any of the parties to proceed against the other for alleged criminal acts will amount to an attempt to exert undue pressure on the opposite side in respect of civil disputes between them. As such Courts will ordinarily not Page No.# 4/5

permit such complaints to be proceeded with on such allegations which are in the nature of a civil dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is already an interim order by the District Judge, Golaghat vide order dated 28.03.2023 directing both parties not to alienate the land. That apart, the apprehension expressed by the respondent No. 2 in the police complaint that the petitioners have illegally mutated their names over the land on which the Tea Factory and Industry is situated, has also been corrected and restored by the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat in RKG No. 38/2022(1) on an application filed by the respondent No. 2, the Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat vide order dated 28.04.2023 in RKG No. 38/2022(1) has restored the name of ' M/s Premier Tea Industries' in the Record of Rights. Under such circumstances, there was no occasion for the police to investigate into the offences alleged in a police complaint dated 01.12.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that by lodging the instant FIR, the respondent No. 2 has exerted undue pressure and has attempted to coerce the petitioners for commission or omission of act towards any unlawful gain likely to be made by the respondent No. 2 in the course of his business relationships with the petitioners.

6. Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. PP for the State submits that since the matter is under investigation, the case diary be called for.

7. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record as well as after careful perusal of the Judgments referred to by the petitioners, this Court is of the view that Notice at this stage be issued to the respondents.

8. Since Ms. S.H. Borah, learned Addl. PP has appeared for the respondent No. 1, no formal notice need be issued. However, extra copies of the petition be Page No.# 5/5

furnished by the petitioners within a period of one week from today.

9. Steps on respondent No. 2 be taken by registered post with A/D within a period of one week from today.

10. Let the case diary connected to Golaghat P.S. Case No. 344/2022 be called for.

11. Meanwhile, till the next date fixed, no coercive steps be taken on the petitioners in connection with Golaghat P.S. Case No. 344/2022.

12. List on 15.06.2023.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant