JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Revision Petitions filed by the appellant. Two revisions petitions were filed and one of them i.e. Criminal Revision No.1622 of 1989 was by the appellant. The matter was taken up ex-parte and the revision petition was dismissed after referring to various aspects. An application for recall was filed which was dismissed on the ground that the order which was sought to be recalled was passed on merits and therefore cannot be recalled.

3. Though many points were urged in support of the application it is not necessary to go into those in detail. While issuing notice on 7.11.2008 it was indicated that the matter may be remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing as the revision petition was dismissed in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant. During the hearing of the application learned counsel for the appellant indicated various reasons for which there was non appearance on the day the matter was taken up. That being so, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for a fresh consideration on merits. To avoid unnecessary delay let the parties appear before the High Court on 24.3.2009 so that a date of hearing can be fixed. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to post the matter before an appropriate Bench.

4. The appeal is allowed.

***********

2009(2) Supreme 721

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

S.B. Sinha and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Mahesh Choudhary — Appellant

versus

State of Rajasthan & Anr. — Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2009

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6769 of 2007]

Decided on : 03-03-2009

(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Court shall ordinarily exercise the jurisdiction in the event the allegations contained in the FIR or the Complaint Petition even if on face value are taken to be correct in their entirety, does not disclose commission of an offence – It is also well settled that court would not look to any document relied upon by the accused in support of his defence. (Paras 10, 11 and 14)

(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Question as to whether the complainant was entitled to a higher amount of commission in terms of the agreement is essentially a civil dispute – Facts of the case do not make the appellant criminally liable – Merely because the nature of the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed (Para 15)

(2002) 1 SCC 555; (2007) 13 SCC 107; 2008 (14) SCALE 85 – Relied upon.

(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – When cognizance is taken on the basis of a detailed charge sheet prima facie disclosing commission of offences, Superior Court should not interfere u/s 482. (Para 16)

(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 437 r/w Article 142, Constitution of India – In view of the appellant’s readiness and willingness to settle the disputes Supreme Court, in exercise of powers u/Article 142, directing for grant of bail to the appellant. (Para 17)

Facts of the case :

1. Appellant was a partner of a firm known as M/s Saraswati Exports. He is also Director of a Company known as ‘Saraswati Exim Pvt. Ltd.’ M/s S.N.Kapur Exports is a firm and the Complainant Vikram Kapoor is a partner thereof.

2. The two firms entered into a contract on or about 1.4.2001 in terms whereof, inter alia, the respondent firm agreed to help and assist the appellant with regard to production. As also to provide knowledge and know-how for the carpet production by the appellant. The firm for the said purpose was to receive 10% commission on the invoice value of each and every invoice and total sales made directly or indirectly by the firm.

3. With effect from 1.4.2003, another agreement had been entered into by and between the parties thereto whereby and whereunder it was agreed that the