Sesami Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Meghalaya

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 1036

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jasti Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Sesami Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Vs.
State of Meghalaya – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2139 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9348 of 2013) and Criminal Appeal No. 2140 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5317 of 2014)
Decided On : 26.09.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anu Gupta and Debjani Das P., Advs.
For the Respondents: Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh and Madhurima Tatia, Advs.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 120-B/418/520 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - First Information Report – Established by evidence at trial - Quash First Information Report - According to Appellant after coming to know of registration of abovementioned case contesting Respondents/accused entered into a compromise with Appellant and agreed to make payment of an amount of towards balance of price of material purchased by them along with interest accrued on such delayed payment - That Appellant company is engaged in business of manufacturing ferrosilicon - It appears that pursuant to an agreement between Appellant company and contesting Respondents/accused Appellant sold a huge quantity of ferrosilicon details of which are not available on record) to contesting Respondents/accused and dispatched four consignments of ferrosilicon valued at of which contesting Respondents/accused paid amount of and balance amount– Held, After hearing submissions advanced by learned Counsel at considering fact and circumstances of case court considered view that matter of disputes is purely covered by civil law and not by criminal law therefore court not see any reason that FIR has any stand in eye of law so it needs to be quashed – Court are of opinion that petition filed by contesting Respondents Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is an abuse of process of Court - As already noticed facts are seriously in dispute truth or otherwise of such facts can only be established by evidence at trial – Court are therefore of opinion that High Court erred in quashing the FIR court therefore set aside order of High Court - First Respondent is directed to proceed with FIR in accordance with law - Appeal stands allowed accordingly criminal Appeal arising out of SLP - Aggrieved by judgment and order of High Court Shilling Bench in Criminal Petition by which High Court quashed proceedings in case order Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Respondents therein have preferred instant appeal According to contesting Respondents/accused Appellant initially agreed to return their money and to take back its goods but later Appellant instructed accused to sell off goods in open market and appropriate same - But subsequently signatures of contesting Respondents/accused were taken on certain blank papers at gun point at instance of Appellant which is subject matter of crime case – Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

Jasti Chelameswar, J.

1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.

Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 9348 of 2013

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court of Meghalaya dated 21.5.2013 in Criminal Petition (SH) No. 68 of 2011, the fourth Respondent therein has preferred the instant appeal.

3. The abovementioned criminal petition was filed by Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein (for short "contesting Respondents/accused") praying in substance to quash the First Information Report (FIR) dated 12.10.2011 in Umiam Police Station Case No. 43(10) of 2011 (G.R. No. 185 of 2011) Under Sections 120-B/418/520 Indian Penal Code.

4. At the outset, we may mention that all the facts are disputed barring the following.

5. That, the Appellant company is engaged in the business of manufacturing ferrosilicon. It appears that pursuant to an agreement between the Appellant company and the contesting Respondents/accused, the Appellant sold a huge quantity of ferrosilicon (the details of which are not available on record) to the contesting Respondents/accused and dispatched four consignments of ferrosilicon valued at Rs. 46,79,890/- out of which the contesting Respondents/accused paid amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 36,79,890/- was outstanding.

6. On 12.10.2011, FIR No. 43(10) of 2011 Under Sections 120-B/418/520 Indian Penal Code, which is the subject matter of present case, came to be registered at Umiam police station at the instance of the Appellant herein.

7. On 31.10.2011, the learned Additional District Magistrate, Nongpoh Court issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against the contesting Respondents/accused.

8. The rest of the facts are in dispute. According to the Appellant, after coming to know of the registration of the abovementioned case, the contesting Respondents/accused entered into a compromise with the Appellant and agreed to make payment of an amount of Rs. 71,34,489/- towards the balance of the price of the material purchased by them along with the interest accrued on such delayed payment.

9. It is the case of the Appellant that on 3.11.2011, the contesting Respondents/accused made payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- and for the balance amount of Rs. 31,34,489/-, an account payee cheque was issued. The said cheque was entrusted by the Appellant to its banker for collection and on presentation to the payee banker the same was returned with an endorsement "Payment Stopped by the Drawer".

10. In the meanwhile, the contesting Respondents/accused filed the abovementioned criminal petition No. 68 of 2011. During the pendency of the said matter, in view of the dishonoured cheque mentioned above, the Appellant initiated another criminal proceeding in crime case No. 87(S)/2012 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shillong.

11. By impugned judgment, the abovementioned criminal petition No. 68 of 2011 came to be allowed quashing the first of the abovementioned two FIRs i.e. Case No. 43(10) of 2011 dated 12.10.2011.

12. The case of the contesting Respondents/accused is as follows.

13. The contesting Respondents/accused admit the fact that on 02.3.2008 they purchased ferrosilicon worth Rs. 46,79,890/- from the Appellant company and paid Rs. 10,00,000/-. On receipt of the goods, they found that the goods were substandard and informed the same to the Appellant and demanded their money back.

14. According to the contesting Respondents/accused, the Appellant initially agreed to return their money and to take back its goods but later the Appellant instructed the accused to sell off the goods in the open market and appropriate the same. But subsequently the signatures of the contesting Respondents/accused were taken on certain blank papers at gun point at the instance of the Appellant. The cheque which is the subject matter of crime case No. 87(S)/2012 is one such document obtained at gun point.

15. It is in the background of the abovementioned disputed question of fact, the learned Judge of the High Court thought it fit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document