Jharkhand High Court
M/S Associate Engineers And Automotive ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 267 of 2022
1. M/s Associate Engineers and Automotive Company under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its office at N.H.33, Fadlugora, Patamda
Road, Near Pardih Kali Mandir, P.O. & P.S. -Chandil, District:
Seraikella-Kharsawan, State -Jharkhand and having their registered
office at NH-33, Ranchi-Patna Road, Near Sant Kiran School,
Hazaribagh, Jharkhand represented by one of the Partner namely
Anupama Sinha, aged about 52 years, W/o -Harendra Kumar Sinha,
R/o :H.N. 202, Gulmohar New Green City, Jamshedpur, Behind Yadav
Petrol Pump, M.G.M. Medical College, P.O. & P.S. -Jamshedpur,
District -East Singhbhum, State -Jharkhand.
2. Anupama Sinha, aged about 52 years, W/o Harendra Kumar Sinha,
R/o: N.N. 202, Gulmohar New Green City, Jamshedpur, Behind Yadav
Petorl Pump, M.G.M. Medical College, P.O. & P.S. -Jamshedpur,
District -East Singhbhum, State -Jharkhand.
3. Prashant Kumar Tiwari, aged about 40 years, S/o : Kashi Nath
Tiwary, R/o 140, OLD Purulia Road, Chankayapuri, Jamshedpur,
Bahardhari, P.O.+P.S. -Chankyapuri, District -East Singhbhum, State
:Jharkhand.
4. Barkat Khan, aged about 43 years, S/o -Atlullah Khan, R/o -D/18
Vatika Green Valley, Chepapul, Paridih, Mango, P.O.+P.S. -Mango,
Jamshedpur, District -East Singhbhum, State :Jharkhand.
.... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Piyush Singhal, S/o Ashok Singhal, aged about 37 years, resident of
:Deluxe no.78, 7th Floor, Orchid Building, Ashiana Garden, Near Tribal
Cultural Center, Sonari, P.S. -Sonari, Town -Jamshedpur, Proprietor of
M/s Singhbhum Steels, office at local Kandra Main Road, Opposite
Sachdeva Weigh Bridge, Bhatia Road, Adityapur, P.O.+P.S. -
Adityapur, District -Seraikella-Kharsawan, State -Jharkhand.
.... Opp. Parties
1
Cr.M.P. No.267 of 2022
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.....
For the Petitioner : Ms. Surabhi, Advocate
: Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, Advocate
: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. - State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Advocate
.....
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in-spite of
repeated calls even if the notice has been validly served upon the
opposite party no.2.
3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the F.I.R. of Sonari P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021 registered for the
offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 &
120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that the allegations against the
petitioners are that the petitioner no.1 is a partnership firm and the
petitioner nos. 2 to 4 are the partners of the said partnership firm.
The petitioner nos. 2 & 3 on behalf of the petitioner no.1 approached
the complainant and asked him to supply certain articles with a
promise to make payment. The complainant supplied articles worth
Rs.39,43,412/-. Later on, the petitioner nos. 2 & 3 being the signing
authority issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.16,63,412/- dated
22.07.2020. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The
complainant tried to contact the petitioners but the petitioners
avoided the complainant on the one pretext or the other and later on
showed their inability to pay the same in response to the notice. The
petitioners paid only Rs.3,00,000/- in installments.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
investigation of the case is going on and charge sheet has not yet
been submitted. It is then submitted that the allegations against the
petitioners are false. It is next submitted that allegations made in the
complaint which upon being referred to police under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., the F.I.R. of this case has been registered, relates to non-
payment of part of the dues that too without any document to show
any entrustment of any property to the petitioners nor the date, time
and place of entrustment of any property has been mentioned
anywhere in the F.I.R. Hence, it is submitted that the allegations
against the petitioners are vague and this case has been foisted to
harass the petitioners by giving a cloak of criminal offence to a
purely alleged civil dispute.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners drawing attention of this Court
to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.02.2023 submits that even
the civil dispute has been settled in the Mediation Centre,
Jamshedpur in connection with A.B.P. No. 1713 of 2021. Drawing
attention of this Court to annexure-5/2 of the supplementary
affidavit at page nos. 6-7, it is submitted that much of the amount
has been paid by the petitioners to the complainant and the
complainant has also no grievance, hence the complainant has not
turned up before this Court even after receipt of notice in this case.
7. Relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another
reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663, paragraph-18 of which reads as under
:-
"18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the
complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made
attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there
are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of
the appellants in retaining the money in order to have
wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the
complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants
did not make payment to the second respondent and that the
appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for
some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the
dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make
out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to
show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must
also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the
same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere
fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the
complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust."
Emphasis supplied)
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a
settled principle of law that to make out a case of criminal breach of
trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the
appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly
disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same.
The mere fact that the accused persons did not pay the money to the
complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relied upon the
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian
Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736
and submits that any effort to settle civil dispute and claims, which
does not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through
criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
9. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of committing
any forgery or insulting or criminally intimidating the informant or
anyone else, in any manner. Hence, it is submitted that even if the
allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be true, still the
offences in respect of which this F.I.R. has been lodged; is not made
out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal
miscellaneous petition be allowed.
10. The learned Spl. P.P. submits that in view of the compromise, the
State has no objection to the prayer for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding.
11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that there is no allegation against the petitioners of having
committed dishonest misappropriation of the entrusted property nor
there is any document in the record to show any entrustment nor the
date, time and place of alleged entrustment has been mentioned
anywhere in the First Information Report. Further, there is no
allegation of any forgery having been committed by the petitioners
nor there is any allegation against the petitioners of insulting
anybody or criminally intimidating anybody.
12. Under such, circumstances, this Court is of the considered view
that even if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are considered to be
true in their entirety, still none of the offences for which the F.I.R. has
been registered is made out. Hence, continuation of this criminal
proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this is
a fit case where the F.I.R. of Sonari P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021
registered for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468,
471, 504, 506 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and set
aside.
13. Accordingly the F.I.R. of Sonari P.S. Case No. 156 of 2021 registered
for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504,
506 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
14. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.
15. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 10th May, 2024
AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-
