Back
2000(2) Supreme 261
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik & Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.
M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Pvt. Ltd. -Appellant
verus
M/s. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1971 of 1999)
Decided on 25-2-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : U.R. Lalit and P.N. Mishra, Sr. Advocates, S.Nanda Kumar, M. Deena Dayalan, N. Swaminathan, L.K. Pandey, G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocates.
For the Respondents : P.S. Mishra, Sr. Advocate, R.P. Singh, Chandra Shekhar, Ms. Ritu Singh, Advocates.
Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of First Information Report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face if it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise upto the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to given vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount. (Para 2)
A settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complainant in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has not authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. (Para 15)
In the matter of exercise of High Court s inherent power, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceeding would be a total abuse of the process of Court. The Criminal Procedue Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, charge and trial, and in the event, the High Court is desirous of putting a stop to the known procedure of law, the High Court must use a proper circumstances and as noticed above, very great care and caution to quash the complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. (Para 17)
In the instant case on careful reading of the complaint, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commisison of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 415, 418 and 420 cannot be said to be totally absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. We, however, hasten to add that whether or not the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case but simply because of the fact that there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy available to the appellant herein. Both criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued in the divers situations. As a matter of fact they are not mutually exclusive but clearly co-extensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents etc. It is anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and impart. Considering the factual aspect of the matter, we unhesitatingly state, however, that the issue involved in the matter under consideration is not a case in which the criminal trial should have been short circuited. (Paras 18 & 20)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 415, 418 and 420-Cheating-Conditions precedent to attract provisions-Guilty intent at time of making promise is a requirement and an essential ingredient-Subsequent failure to fulfil promise by itself would not attract provisions of Sections 418, 420-Mens rea is essential.
While Section 415 is an offence of cheating, Section 418 deals with cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to a person whose interest the offender is bound to protect and Section 420 is cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In order to attract the provisions of Sections 418 and 420 the guilty intent, at the time of making the promise is a requirement and an essential ingredient thereto and subsequent failure to fulfil the promise by itself would not attract the provisions of Section 418 or 420. Mens rea is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420. As a matter of fact illustration (g) to Section 415 makes the position clear enough to indicate that mere failure to deliver in breach of an agreement would not amount to cheating but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. (Para 12)
JUDGMENT
Banerjee, J.-Leave granted.
2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of First Information Report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face if it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise upto the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to given vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount.
3. Factual matrix therefore would thus be relevant in the matter of assessment of the situation as to whether civic profile would outweight the criminal outfit .
4. It appears that as against the initiation of proceeding on the file of 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the appellant under Sections 120B, 418, 415 and 420 read with Section 35 Indian Penal Code, the respondents moved the High Court for quashing of complaint and the Learned Single Judge on 15th February, 1999 in Criminal Petition No. 5386 of 1998 did quash the complaint and hence the petitioner is in appeal before this Court. The Learned Single Judge while dealing with matter came to a definite conclusion that the complaint does not disclose any offence having been committed by the accused petitioner and as such allowed the petition for quashing of the complaint.
5. The factual score depict that the respondents approached the petitioner for the purpose of securing Ethambutol Hydrochloride drug in bulk for sale and use in various pharmaceutical drugs and products being manufactured by the respondent Company. It is at this juncture that the Petitioner has come out with a definite case that by reason of a promise of maintaining continuous supply of raw materials to the petitioners herein for the purpose of manufacturing Ethambutol Hydrochloride and in such a way so as not to cause any interruption or hindrance to the manufacturing activity of the Complainant s factory, the Complainant-petitioner entered into an agreement dated 31st August, 1997 which inter alia records as below :
"It is the responsibility of the party of the 2nd part to maintain sufficient inventory of the Raw Materials as described in the Annexure I in order to maintain consistent supplies to the manufacturer and not to cause any interruption/hindrance with the manufacturing activity by the manufacturer".
6. It is on the basis of the agreement as noticed above and failure to comply therewith, it is stated that the petitioner herein has lost a substantial amount of money and to the extent of about one crore and the sufferance of loss has been by reason of specific assurance and representation which obviously turned out to be false. Misrepresentation on the part of the respondent accused persons to the Complainant, has been the major grievance and a definite and specific case has been made out that such a misrepresentation was intentionally effected since the accused persons were in the know of things that in the event the supplies are not effected, as per the agreement, the Complainant is likely to suffer a wrongful loss which as the complaint proceeds, in the interest of the transaction between the parties, the accused persons were bound to protect. It is on this
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
