Back
2009(5) Supreme 646
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Rajiv Modi — Appellant
versus
Sanjay Jain and Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1214 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 4278 of 2008)
Decided on : 14-07-2009
Facts of the Case :
Present Appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court quashing private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on ground that Magistrate, not had territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.
Findings of the Court ;
Appointment of appellant’s company as C&F Agent of the respondent’s company was agreed upon in Patna and the Letter of Appointment was also delivered at the address of the in-laws house of the appellant in Patna. Hence it could be said that part of cause of action prima facie appeared to have arisen in Patna. Therefore, Judicial Magistrate, Patna was justified in taking cognizance complaint and issuing process to the respondents. High Court erred by going into merits of the case and deciding doubtful or complicated questions of law and fact while invoking its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. This was not the fit case where High Court could have exercised its inherent powers under section 482 of the Code-Impugned order passed by High Court set aside.
JUDGMENT
H.L. Dattu, J.—
1. This is an appeal for special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 17815 of 2002 dated 20.11.2007. We grant special leave and dispose of this appeal as hereunder.
2. By the judgment and the order impugned, the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has quashed the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on the ground that the Judicial Magistrate, Patna did not have territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The admitted facts are, that, on 1.4.1999 M/s. Dhriti Agro Farms Private Limited (DAFPL), a company owned by the appellant, had entered into an agreement with Rajasthan Breweries Limited (RBL), a company owned by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The agreement provides for appointment of DAFPL as their C&F Agent for the State of Rajasthan. It also provides the payment that requires to be made by the appellant for supply of raw materials to the suppliers of the respondents on behalf of the respondents and the respondents would supply the finished goods to the appellant for sale in Rajasthan.
4. It is the case of the appellant that he had visited his in-laws in Patna in the month of February, 1998 and there the respondents had met him and had projected a lucrative picture of their business and assured the appellant the high returns for his investments. The appellant had agreed to become the C&F Agent of the respondent’s company for State of Rajasthan. Subsequently, the respondents handed over the Letter of Appointment of the appellant at the residence of his in-laws at Patna. It is the case of the appellant, that, pursuant to the agreement it has made several payments for supply of raw materials to different suppliers of the respondent but the respondents have not made any payment of the same till date. It is its further grievance that appellant though had made repeated requests to the respondent to return the money paid, the respondents have not acceded to the request so made.
5. In view of the inaction of the police authorities, the appellant was constrained to file a private complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, inter alia alleging commission of the offences by the respondents under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
6. After recording the statements of the appellant and his witnesses and being convinced that a prima facie case has been made out against the respondents, for the offences, under Sections 420, 406 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint and has issued summons to the respondents.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents had approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., inter alia, requesting the court to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna.
8. Before the High Court, the learned Counsel for the respondents had submitted that, no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna and as such the Judicial Magistrate, Patna could not have taken cognizance and passed the impugned order. It was further argued that the appellant had also filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Economic Wing, Crime Branch, New Delhi and also before the Mehrauli Police Station, New Delhi, but when both the authorities did not respond to his complaint, he has filed the present complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Patna, only to harass the respondents. It was also submitted that the complainant/appellant himself had approached the respondents for execution of the agreement and therefore, a Letter of Appointment was sent to him at his New Delhi address and, therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate has erred in taking cognizance of the complaint and ordering issue of summons to the re
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
