Madras High Court
V.K.Jaychandran vs The State on 19 October, 2022
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.O.P Nos.7345 & 8385 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P Nos.4889 & 5511 of 2021
Crl.O.P No.7345 of 2021
1.V.K.Jaychandran
2.V.Gopalakrishnan
3.C.Appandi Rajan
4.Mithilesh Bhat
5.P.Jayadevan
6.Abshishek Sharma ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
G2 Uthiramerur Police Station
Uthiramerur,
Kancheepuram
2.T.Dinesh ... Respondents
PRAYER in Crl.O.P No.7345 of 2021: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the
records in Cr.No.137 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021 on the file of the 1st
respondent police and quash the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
Crl.O.P No.8385 of 2021
1.Aparna Bhargava
2.D.Madhaneshwaran
3.Gurmeet Singh ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State
Rep. by Inspector of Police
G2 Uthiramerur Police Station
Uthiramerur
Kancheepuram
2. T.Dinesh ... Respondents
PRAYER in Crl.O.P No.8385 of 2021: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the
records in Crime No.137 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021 on the file of the 1st
respondent and quash the same.
In both petitions
For Petitioners : Mr.Abdul Saleem
for M/s.AAV Partners
For Respondents : Mr.A.Damodaran for R1
Additional Public Prosecutor
Mr.T.Dinesh - R2/party in person
COMMON ORDER
These two Criminal Original Petitions have been filed, seeking to call
for the records pertaining to Crime No.137 of 2020 on the file of the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
respondent police for the offences under Section 506(i) IPC r/w Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(u), 3(1) (za) (E), 3(1) (zc) , 3(2)(iii), 3(2)(iv) & 3(2)
(vi) of the Schedule Castes / Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and quash the same.
2. In Crl.O.P No.7345 of 2021, the first petitioner is the Executive
Director (retd); the second petitioner is the Chief General Manager (retail
sales) (retd); the third petitioner is the Senior Manager (retail sales); the
fourth petitioner is an employee in their divisional office and he is working
as a Senior Officer in the sales department; the fifth petitioner is the
Executive Director and State Head; the sixth petitioner is the General
Manager (retail sales).
3. In Crl.O.P No.8385 of 2021, the first petitioner is the Chief Project
Manager; the second petitioner is the Chief Manager (retail sales) and the
third petitioner is the Director Marketing (retd); all these petitioners are
employees of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Indian
Oil Corporation is a Public Sector Enterprise of the Government of India
under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas;
the company deals with the refining and marketing of petroleum products
through its dealers; a land measuring an extent of 6756 sq.ft. comprised in
Survey No.68/7 B, Uthiramerur Main Road, Vedhapalayam Village,
Uthiramerur Taluk, Kancheepuram District was leased out for a period of 20
years by one Mr.T.Gobi Shankar, who is the brother of the 2nd
respondent/de-facto complainant through a lease deed dated 30.06.2006 for
setting up a retail outlet; through negotiations, the leased out portion has
been reduced to 5,440 sq.ft.; after getting due permission from the
concerned authorities, a retail outlet was constructed and the petitioner was
appointed as a retail outlet dealer for the same; the petitioner was given
dealership under the reservation made for Schedule Caste applicants; an
agreement was executed between the de-facto complainant and the Indian
Oil Corporation on 13.08.2007 in this regard; from the year 2008, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
dealer/de-facto complainant started making various complaints with regard
to stock loss, pipeline leak, electric fault, discrepancy in the RO site extent
etc.; the grievance of the petitioners have been redressed and it is ensured
that there was no leakage from the tanks or from the pipelines; on
08.12.2008, the 2nd respondent wrote a letter to the Corporation by stating
that he could not conduct the retail outlet at Uthiramerur and requested the
Corporation to allot COCO (Company Owned & Company Operated) outlet
within the limits of Chennai City; the petitioners submitted that the
dealer/de-facto complainant also requested to appoint an arbitrator as per the
terms of the dealership agreement and the Corporation has also appointed
Shri.B.Balya, Senior Consumer Manager, as the Sole Arbitrator on
20.01.2009; but the 2nd respondent failed to make his claim statement
before the arbitration, though sufficient opportunities were given to him and
hence, on 10.09.2009, the proceedings were terminated; the 2nd respondent
has been causing troubles to the Corporation and its authorities in every
possible manner; he dragged them to various Court proceedings by filing
complaints against the authorities under Schedule Castes / Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there
is no basis for registering any criminal case against the petitioners who are
just employees of the Corporation; the petitioners are not personally related
to the 2nd respondent in any way except with regard to the retail outlet
dealership given to the 2nd respondent; the petitioners never met the 2nd
respondent/de-facto complainant; after his termination of dealership in the
year 2013, there is no contact between the 2nd respondent/de-facto
complainant and the officials of the Indian Oil Corporation; the allegations
made by the 2nd respondent are all baseless and false; the present FIR in
Crime No.137 of 2021 is per se illegal and does not disclose any specific
allegation in respect of offence or an overtact committed by the petitioners;
the transaction between the Indian Oil Corporation and the de-facto
complainant is purely civil in nature; the commercial transactions are
governed by the terms of the dealership agreement; the de-facto complainant
was terminated because he had violated the terms of the contract and the
land has also been surrendered to the landlord.; since the allegations made
against the petitioners are false and frivolous, the FIR should be quashed.
7. The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant made his appearance in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
person and he represented himself. It is learnt that the 2nd respondent/de-
facto complainant is an Advocate and has good legal knowledge to submit
his arguments.
8. The de-facto complainant submitted that the petitioner-Corporation
without following the rules and regulations had established a tank in the
retail outlet which would endanger the life of the public and the petitioner;
by concealing all these facts, an explosive license was granted; since the
dealership was given in the name of the de-facto complainant, the de-facto
complainant is answerable for any violation made in this regard. Due to
leakage in the ground, there was difference between stored fuel and sold
fuel; the de-facto complainant was also made to suffer loss, only in view to
avoid endangerment with the public, the de-facto complainant stopped the
business of the retail outlet; knowing fully well that it is a tough decision,
the petitioners compelled the de-facto complainant to continue his business;
the de-facto complainant was threatened that he should not make any
complaints for the violations; hence, the de-facto complainant has filed a
complaint before the National Commission for Schedule Castes; after
enquiry, the National Commission for Schedule Castes advised the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
petitioners to erect fresh tanks and compensate the loss suffered by the de-
facto complainant; the petitioners are conspired together and caused the
disappearance of evidence available in the site; the de-facto complainant
belongs to Schedule Castes / Schedule Tribes, but he was harassed in
various methods; only in view of that, a case has been registered against the
petitioners; since prima facie materials are produced by the de-facto
complainant, both the petitions should be dismissed.
9. On the face of it, it appears that there is a dispute between the de-
facto complainant and the petitioners in connection with the dealership given
to the de-facto complainant for a retail petrol outlet of Indian Oil
Corporation. The grievance of the de-facto complainant is that while
erecting the tank for storing petrol, due precautions were not taken by the
petitioner-Corporation and it was endangering the safety of the public and
only for that reason, he could not continue his business. The de-facto
complainant himself has stated that he had made the very same complaint
before the National Commission for Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and
the said complaint was closed. The transaction between the petitioner-
Corporation and the de-facto complainant is commercial in nature and it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
borne by an agreement between the parties. As per the agreement, the
parties have agreed to settle their disputes through arbitration. The de-facto
complainant has also made a claim before the Arbitration Tribunal and
obtained an Arbitration Award. If the de-facto complainant is aggrieved by
the Award of the Arbitration Tribunal, he ought to have challenged the same
by filing appropriate proceedings. The land in which the retail outlet was
established belonged to the brother of the de-facto complainant and after
stoppage of the business, the land was surrendered to the land owner.
10. The records would show that in this regard, the complainant has
given a complaint with similar allegations to the Uthiramerur Police Station
and on which a case was registered in Crime No.20 of 2020 for the offences
under Sections 336, 427, 409, 420 and 506(i) IPC. After investigation, the
same was closed as "Mistake of Fact". In order to make out a case under
Section 506(i) IPC, I find no materials except the bitter relationship between
the de-facto complainant and the petitioners, who are the authorities of the
Indian Oil Corporation. The case has been registered under the various
provisions of the Schedule Castes / Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989. The fact remains that the petitioners have got no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
personal animosity with the de-facto complainant. Infact, some of the
authorities did not even meet the de-facto complainant at any point of time.
For a commercial dispute, the remedy open to the de-facto complainant is by
way of taking appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The
remedy open to the de-facto complainant is predominantly civil in nature
and had arisen out of a contract pertaining to a commercial transaction.
11. At no point of time, the petitioners have engaged with the de-facto
complainant personally. So, there is no occasion to cause any atrocity
against him as alleged by the de-facto complainant. Except the fact that the
de-facto complainant has been given with allotment of dealership under the
Schedule Castes / Schedule Tribes quota, nothing happened between the
Indian Oil Corporation and the de-facto complainant in the contracts has got
anything to do with the caste of the parties. Since the parties are governed by
the terms of contract and for any violation of the terms of contract, the
remedy should be by way of initiating appropriate proceedings before the
Arbitration Tribunal, I feel there is no fundamental materials for taking any
criminal action against the petitioners. The de-facto complainant has
attempted to give a criminal colour to a commercial dispute. The materials
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
available on record would only show the commercial transaction between the
de-facto complainant and the Indian Oil Corporation.
12. Without any grounds to make out any criminal offence against
the petitioners, no investigation need to be done by the police by wasting
time. The petitioners need not be put to face a criminal case for the alleged
violations said to have been committed during the course of the commercial
transaction. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in Parbatbhai Aahir Vs. State of Gujarat [AIR 2017
SC 4843], wherein the proposition with regard to giving criminal colour to
civil dispute has been set as under:
"15.The Broad Principles which emerge from the
precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the
following propositions:-
(i) to (vi)..................
(vii) As distinguished from serious offences, there
may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or
predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on
a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
inherent power to quash is concerned.
(viii) Criminal cases involving offences which
arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an essentially
civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for
quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
13. I feel it is an appropriate case for which the above principles will
apply. Since the de-facto complainant has been making similar allegations
against the petitioners in various forum and action has already been taken or
closed, I find no reason for registering an FIR on the very same allegations.
Since the de-facto complainant has not made out any criminal offence and
all the allegations made by him are civil in nature, it is appropriate for this
Court to invoke the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the
proceedings.
14. In the result, these two Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P
Nos.7345 and 8385 of 2021 stand allowed and the proceedings in Crime
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
No.137 of 2021 dated 30.03.2021, on the file of the 1st respondent, is
hereby quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
19.10.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
uma
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
G2 Uthiramerur Police Station
Uthiramerur,
Kancheepuram
2. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
R.N.MANJULA, J.,
uma
Crl.O.P Nos. 7345 & 8385 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P Nos.4889 & 5511 of 2021
19.10.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
