SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 364

2007(2) Supreme 1034
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir, JJ.
Thelapalli Raghavaiah—Petitioner
versus
Station House Officer & Ors.—Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3030 of 2006
Decided on 19-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.K. Anand, K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Advocates, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan for M/s. Lawyer’s Knit & Co., Advocates.
For the Respondents : G. Bikshapathy, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Advocates, Hanumanth Reddy, Krishna Reddy, Rajiv Mehta, Raghavachary, Anupam Lal Das, Arunbabh Choudhary, Ms. Pragya Singh Baghel, Amit Sharma, Mrs. D. Bharati Reddy, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
A criminal complaint which does not disclose any offence except a civil dispute between the parties, is liable to be quashed.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 196, 199, 120B, 403, 406 and 418—Quashing of criminal prosecution for offences under—Complaint makes out a civil dispute relating to measurement of civil contract work—A private company obtained a contract for executing work on National Highway and appointed complainant as its sub-contractor for excavation and transportation of gravel for formation of embankment of Bypass Road—Agreed rate of remuneration was Rs. 27/- per cubic meter for the first kilometer and Rs.4/- per cubic meter for each kilometer thereafter—Allegation made that the company started mixing fly ash with the gravel purportedly in keeping with instructions received—Company made deductions of various amounts from the complainant’s bill—A complaint case was registered on basis of allegations that respondents company hatched the criminal conspiracy and cheated the complainant and also misappropriated the amount by making illegal deductions in aggregate of 28% in all bills and committed breach of trust too—On respondents petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., High Court quashing the FIR holding that the complaint did not disclose any offence except a civil dispute between the parties—Whether High Court was justified in quashing the prosecution—(Yes)—Complaint filed by petitioner primarily makes out a civil dispute relating to measurement—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482.

       Held : We have carefully gone through the complaint made by the petitioner, and are convinced that the same primarily makes out a civil dispute relating to measurement, though an attempt has been made to give the same a criminal flavour. The High Court rightly held that the entire reading of the complaint does not disclose any offence except a civil dispute between the parties. (Para 18)

       We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court impugned in this Special Leave Petition, though the High Court after noticing its earlier order dated 7th October, 2005, in Writ Petition No. 21594 of 2005, could have stayed its hands till the Final Report was filed in connection with F.I.R. 83 of 2005 of Kovur Police Station.(Para 19)

       

JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.—On 21st June, 2005, the petitioner herein lodged a First Information Report with the Kovur Police Station in Nellore District against the private respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 herein alleging commission of offences under Sections 196, 199, 120(B), 403, 406 and 418 Indian Penal Code.

2. The complaint in short is that Raghava Infrastructure Private Ltd. was a Private Limited Company engaged in doing civil contract works. Soma Enterprise Limited is also doing civil contract works having its corporate office at 14, Avenue-4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.and its site office near Saibaba Temple, Kovur, adjacent to National Highway-5. It was stated that the respondent No. 3 was one of its Directors. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the Project Manager and Materials Engineer of the Company.

3. It was alleged in the complaint that Soma Enterprise Limited who obtained a contract for executing work on the Nellore Bypass Road on National Highway-5, appointed the complainant as its sub-contractor for excavation and transportation of gravel for the formation of embankment of Nellore Bypass Road on National Highway-5 from Km 172.840 to 178.200 from 1st June, 2002 onwards. The agreed rate of remuneration was Rs.27/- per cubic meter for the first kilometer and Rs.4/- per cubic meter for each kilometer thereafter.

4. It was alleged that from the month of August, 2002 to December, 2002 Soma Enterprise Limited started mixing fly ash with the gravel purportedly in keeping with instructions received. On account of such mixing of fly ash with the gravel, Soma Enterprise Ltd. began deducting various amounts from the complainant’s bills. According to the complainant, despite repeated protests, Soma Enterprise Limited did not pay any heed and continued to mix fly ash with the gravel supplied by the complainant and also continued to deduct amounts from the complainant’s bill, in order to cause unlawful loss to the complainant and unlawful gain for itself.

5. It is alleged that the Director of Soma Enterprise Ltd. assured the complainant that he would disburse the amount pertaining to the quantity of gravel by adopting the best suitable method for arriving at the volumetric bifurcation of gravel and fly ash from the mix. According to the complainant, he continued to execute the work entrusted to him as per the aforesaid assurance.

6. It was alleged in the complaint that a sum of Rs.5.72 lakhs had been deducted from the bill for the month of February, 2003 alone. It was also the complainant’s case that he had requested the Director and Project Manager to count the number of tippers of gravel being supplied and dumped by the complainant in the stock yard for payment purposes, but the Director did not agree to such a method.

7. The further complaint is that although the complainant continued to supply the gravel in terms of the sub-contract, the Director changed his stand and asked the complainant to prove that the formula by which they were deducting the amount for fly ash was wrong. On that basis the complainant approached the Geo Marine Consultants Private Limited, Indira Nagar, Chennai, and had the gravel and fly ash tested. A report was prepared by the Managing Director, but the same was not accepted by Soma Enterprise Ltd. Consequently, the complainant approached the IIT Madras and got the mixed tested at the Department of Ocean Engineering, IIT, Madras, through Professor Dr. S. Narasimha Rao, who was of the view that although 33.3% of fly ash is mixed with gravel there will not be any increase in the volume of gravel soil. According to the complainant, as a counter-blast and with an intention to cheat the complainant, Soma Enterprise Ltd. had hatched a criminal conspiracy with IIT, Chennai Professors S.R. Gandhi and Dr. G.R. Dodagoundar and created a fake report to cheat the complainant and cause wrongful loss to him. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the complainant requested the police authorities to investigate into the














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top