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

2009 Supreme(SC) 680

2009(3) Supreme 378
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. — Appellants
versus
M/s. Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners P. Ltd. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 706 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6482 of 2006)
Decided on : 13-04-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants :H.L. Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Dr. R.N. Upadhya (for P.V. Yogeswaran), Advocates.
For the Respondents:M.N. Krishnamani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mary Mitzy, Deepak Jain, G.S. Chauhan (for Shiv Prakash Pandey), Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
When the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – An order of Magistrate issuing process could be quashed under certain identified circumstances – When the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence, the proceeding is liable to be quashed. (Paras 9 and 14)

        (1976)3 SCC 736; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; (1995)6 SCC 194; (1985)2 SCC 370; (2006)6 SCC 736; (2005)10 SCC 336 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. The present appeal has been filed by Accused-1 (1st appellant) and Accused-2 (2nd appellant).

        2. The respondent through his agents approached the 1st appellant by personally visiting Akola and ordered cotton bales to manufacture yarn. The agents had stayed for about 45 days at Akola and after examining the quality of cotton and after their approval the cotton was transported to the respondent for which the respondent offered 1% commission to the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant by raising bank loan gave the same to the cotton manufacturers and dealers and bought from them and thereafter, as requested by the respondent, transported the same to Coimbatore.

        3. During the course of their business transaction the respondent had developed some problem with their two commission agents belonging to Coimbatore with regard to the payment of compensation and other expenses. The appellant had sent a fax message on 12.2.2004 to the respondent giving statement of accounts by showing that the amount lying with him is Rs. 4,74,521/- and requested him to send balance money for sending 100 bales and also requested to send the ‘C’ Form. In response to the above fax, on 15.02.2004, the respondent sent a fax stating that the closing balance with the 1st appellant is Rs. 4,76,521/-.

        4. Thereafter, the respondent disputed the 1st appellant’s claim and allegedly made some false statement and did not make any payment.

        5. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1 at Coimbatore for offences u/s 406, 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’. Subsequently, the respondent also filed a private complaint under Section 190 and 200 Cr.PC for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 384 IPC by implicating the 2nd appellant, who is the wife of the 1st appellant and one Srinivasa Lele who is the agent of the respondent. The Judicial Magistrate No. 1 at Coimbatore on the basis of such complaint issued summons to the appellants to appear before the court on 17.2.2006.

        6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, the appellants approached the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings against them which was dismissed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court :

        Impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Original Petition No. 4556 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) by the appellants for quashing criminal complaint filed against them by the respondents before the Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

3. Facts in brief, as alleged by the appellants, are as follows:

Ravindera Kumar Madhanlal Goenka - Accused No. 1 ( 1st appellant herein) is the proprietor of M/s. Ravindera Kumar Madhanlal having its office at Shri Ganesh Complex, Kothadi Bazar, Akola - 444001, Maharashtra and is a General Merchant and Commission Agent for various food items like sugar, jaggery, oil seeds, oil, grains, pulses and cotton etc. It was dealing in cotton as commission agent for various persons belonging to different places in different states including Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. The proprietorship of the 1st appellant is registered with the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra. Srimathi Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka - Accused No. 2 (2nd appellant herein) is stated to be a partner in the firm. Accused-2 is a broker cum dealer and Accused-3 his wife, a partner and Accused-4 is his sub-broker/agent. The present appeal has been filed by Accused-1 (1st appellant) and Accused-2 (2nd appellant).

4. The respondent through his agents approached the 1st appellant by personally visiting Akola and ordered cotton bales to manufacture yarn. The agents had stayed for about 45 days at Akola and after examining the quality of cotton and after their approval the cotton was transported to the respondent for which the respondent offered 1% commission to the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant by raising bank loan gave the same to the cotton manufacturers and dealers and bought from them and thereafter, as requested by the respondent, transported the same to Coimbatore. It was a practice that entire advance amount was to be paid at the time of ordering cotton. The respondent after gaining confidence of the 1st appellant some time used to send even lesser amount than the actual value of the cotton but even then the 1st appellant used to send cotton bales over and above the advance amount paid by the respondent. The advance amount used to be sent by the respondent by telegraph transfer and every transfer was accounted by both the respondent as well as 1st appellant.

5. During the course of their business transaction the respondent had developed some problem with their two commission agents belonging to Coimbatore with regard to the payment of compensation and other expenses. The appellant had sent a fax message on 12.2.2004 to the respondent giving statement of accounts by showing that the amount lying with him is Rs. 4,74,521/- and requested him to send balance money for sending 100 bales and also requested to send the ‘C’ Form. In response to the above fax, on 15.02.2004, the respondent sent a fax stating that the closing balance with the 1st appellant is Rs. 4,76,521/-. Thereafter, the respondent through his agents requested the 1st appellant to send totaling 145 bales of cotton and it was confirmed by the fax messages dated 18.2.2004 of his agent Mr. Srinivas R. Lele wherein he made specific request to send the 145 bales after receiving the entire amount and also by deducting = % commission payable to him. The 1st appellant, vide his fax message dated 20.2.004 requested the respondent to send the remaining amount for lifting of 145 bales, which was weighed by his new controller and also requested him to settle all the amount by sending the statement of account along with the fax. However, the respondent by return fax disputed the 1st appellant’s claim and allegedly made some false statement. Again, the 1st appellant by another fax requested the respondent to send the remaining ba
























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