Page No.# 1/9 vs Anglo Packagings Pvt. Ltd
2025 Latest Caselaw 8576 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/9 vs Anglo Packagings Pvt. Ltd on 17 November, 2025

                                                                         Page No.# 1/9

GAHC010124002014




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:15540

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

                               Case No. : Crl.Pet./278/2014

            MR. VIPIN SABOO
            PROPRIETOR OF M/S AISHWARY POLYPAT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT HOUSE
            NO. 679 "SABOO BHAWAN" 1ST CROSSING, RASTA JAT. KE KUWA KA,
            CHANDPOL BAZAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN UNDER P.S. NAHARGARH R/O
            66/113, HEERA PATH, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR, P.S. MANSAROVAR DIST.
            JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN



            VERSUS


            ANGLO PACKAGINGS PVT. LTD.
            REP. BY ITS MANAGER SHRI K.K. DAS HAVING ITS OFFICE, AT ABHOYPUR
            COLLEGE NAGAR, NORTH GUWAHATI-31.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.B M CHETRI, MR.V K CHOPRA,MR.S K SINGH,MR.O P
BHATI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S AGARWAL, MR.D C KALITA,MR.K K MOUR,MS.D R

GAYARI Page No.# 2/9

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For the Petitioner : Mr. V. K. Chopra, Advocate.

For the Respondent :        Mr. S. Agarwal, Advocate.



Date of hearing                          :      17.11.2025.

Date on which the judgment is reserved :        N/A.

Date of pronouncement of judgment           :   17.11.2025.


Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment           :      No.

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced                              :       Yes.




                             JUDGMENT &ORDER (Oral)

Heard Mr. V. K. Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. S. Agarwal, learned counsel representing the respondent.

Page No.# 3/9

2. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the Case No.1750 C/2013

pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) No.1, Kamrup at

Guwahati.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner/accused used to visit Guwahati

for his business purposes; that the petitioner/accused came across the

respondent/complainant and knew each other as the nature of business was the

same; that gradually the accused malafidely developed friendly terms with the

respondent/complainant; that initially the petitioner/accused purchased small

quantities of goods in cash; that on 03.12.2012 the respondent /complainant was out

of station and in his absence, the accused asked the staff of the

respondent/complainant to deliver goods amounting to Rs.4,35,001/- on credit

claiming of having the consent from the respondent/ complainant and thus,

dishonestly induced its staff to deliver the goods on credit; that the

petitioner/accused took the goods without the consent of the

respondent/complainant. It is the further case of the respondent/complainant that

on various dates the petitioner/accused was asked to make the payment but finally

on 30.12.2012, the petitioner/accused dishonestly refused to return the goods or

make the payment and thus, the accused committed the offence punishable under

Sections 379/420/403 IPC. Consequently, finding no other alternative, the

respondent/complainant was compelled to file the instant complaint case before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati with a prayer to take Page No.# 4/9

appropriate action in accordance with law.

4. The case was accordingly entrusted to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial

Magistrate (S) No.1, Kamrup at Guwahati for trial and disposal.

5. During the course of trial, the learned Trial Court recorded the initial statement

of the Manager of the complainant company under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and further

the statement of other employee of the company under Section 202, Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, by order dated 16.09.2013 the learned Trial Court being prima-facie

satisfied took cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/403 of the IPC and

accordingly issued processes. Situated thus, the instant quashing application has

been filed by the petitioner.

6. Mr. V. K. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no criminal

case whatsoever is made out in the body of the complainant. He further submits that

at best the allegations may give rise to a civil dispute. However, the complainant by

misusing the process of law has given the civil dispute cloak of criminal nature. By

relying on e-mails dated 18.01.2013 and 08.03.2013 the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that though the complainant had requested the petitioner to clear

the outstanding dues, however, nowhere it has been mentioned that the petitioner

has cheated the complainant. Mr. Chopra submits that proceeding with the trial

would result in abuse of the process of court and would not serve the ends of justice

and as such, the impugned proceeding is liable to be quashed.

7. In support of the aforesaid submissions he relies upon the decisions of the Apex

Court rendered in Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in Page No.# 5/9

(2013) 11 SCC 673 and in Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council and

another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 520.

8. On other hand, Mr. S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent/

complainant vehemently opposing the quashing prayer made in the instant petition

submits that the averments in the complaint prima-facie makes out a criminal

offence and hence, the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought

not to be exercised. In support of his submissions he relies upon the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others

reported in (1999) 8 SCC 686.

9. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials available

on record.

10. The principle of exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the

FIR is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. VS.

Bhajan Lal and Ors reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, which reads as hereunder:-

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

Page No.# 6/9

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

11. The test to be applied in order to satisfy as to whether this Court shall exercise

the power of quashing or not is to examine the averments made in the complaint on

the face value and to see as to whether a criminal case is made out or not. Relevant

paragraphs of the complaint reads as under :-

"4. That the accused used to visit Guwahati for his business purpose. The accused person came across the complainant and known to each other as Page No.# 7/9

the nature of business was same. Gradually the accused person malafidely developed friendly terms with the complainant. The accused person visited the business place of the complainant. Knowing the vast span of business, the accused person wished to purchase goods from the complainant. Initially the accused purchased small quantity of goods on cash.

5. That on 03-12-2012 the complainant was out of station. The accused person came to the business place of the complainant. The accused person asked the staff of the complainant to deliver goods amounting to Rs.4,35,001/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand & One) only. The staff initially refused but the accused told that he had express consent from the complainant and dishonestly induced the staff to deliver the good on credit. The staff could not contact the complainant and believing on the words of the accused person, delivered the goods to the accused person on credit. The accused person departed with the goods.

A copy of the invoice, transport copy & road permit are annexed herewith and collectively marked as Annexure-I, II & III respectively.

6. That when the complainant came back to Guwahati, he was surprise about the deal. The accused person did not take any consent from the complainant. Taking the advantage of his absence the accused person dishonestly managed to part with the goods of huge amount which amounted to Rs.4,35,001/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand & One) only. The accused person took those goods without the consent of the complainant. The accused person also cheated the complainant.

7. That on various dates accused was asked to make the payment but finally on 30.12.2012 the accused person dishonestly refused to return the goods or pay the bill amount of Rs.4,35,001/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Five Thousand & One) only."

12. The statement of the complainant as recorded by the learned Trial Court Page No.# 8/9

reads as under :-

"On oath, I have filed this complaint case against Bipin Saboo, Proprietor of Ashwarya Polypat. I had a friendship with the accused. He deals with the business of selling and supplying of caps of bottleand we manufacture those caps. Initially the accused purchased small quantity of goods on cash. Once on 03/12/2012 in my absence, the accused came and took goods amounting Rs.4,35,001/- from my staff. Being good relationship with me, the staffs delivered the goods to him. But the accused had not made any payment for those and took the goods on credit. Informed the staff that he tried to contact with me over phone but I was not reachable. But he did not make any call to me. But the accused did not make the payment nor returned the goods. I demanded the money from the accused by telephone calls as well as sending letter, but he refused to make payment. The accused on 30/12/2012 finally told that he would not make the payment of the amount and asked to do whatever like to do and thereby he cheating me. I have not filed any case in Police Station regarding this matter."

13. Reading of the aforesaid material on record, it is clear that had not the

petitioner developed the business relationship with the complainant and deceived

the staff of the complainant thereafter to believe that he had tried to contact the

complainant over phone but he was not reachable and induced thereby to give the

goods on credit, the staff of the complainant would not have parted with the goods

in question without payment. It is further evident from the complaint that after taking

delivery of the goods, the acused/petitioner has not made the payment till date. It is

thus apparent that the petitioner/accused had no intention whatsoever to pay but

merely told the staff of the complainant that he shall pay later after delivery only in

order to induce the staff of the complainants to part with the goods. That being so, Page No.# 9/9

prima-facie the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC, amongst others, is attracted in the

body of the averments made in the complaint. Hence, scuttling the criminal

proceedings at the outset is not justified.

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the instant petition does

not merit quashing of the proceeding of the Complaint Case No.1750 C/2013 pending

in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S) No.1, Kamrup at

Guwahati. Consequently, the instant Criminal Petition is dismissed.

15. Interim order passed earlier on 29.10.2014 suspending the further proceeding

of Complaint Case No. 1750c/2013, accordingly stands vacated.

No order as to cost.

                                                           JUDGE




Comparing Assistant



                Digitally
Pranab          signed by
                Pranab Kumar

Kumar           Deka
                Date:
                2025.11.19
Deka            00:25:26
                +05'30'