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

2024 Supreme(SC) 88

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Sachin Garg – Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2024 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4415 OF 2023)
Decided On : 30-01-2024

Advocates apper
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Sushil Shukla, Adv. Mr. Nakul Mohta, Adv. Mr. Devansh Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Alina Merin Mathew, Adv. Mr. Muthu Thangathurai, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv. Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offence – While at the stage of issuing summons Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, duty of Magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 504 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, insult and criminal intimidation – Cognizance of offence – While it is true that at the stage of issuing summons a Magistrate only needs to be satisfied with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, duty of Magistrate is also to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding – Past commercial relationship between appellant’s employer and respondent no.2 is admitted – Dispute pertains to revision of rate per unit in an ongoing commercial transaction – Dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality – No case at all has been made out that would justify invoking machinery of Criminal Courts – Allegation of criminal intimidation is against appellant directly – whatever be value or quality of such allegations – For that reason complaint case cannot be rejected at nascent stage on sole ground of not implicating company – Criminal Complaint Case quashed. (Paras 14,18, 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Dispute is over a purchase order issued for supply of Dissolved Acetylene Gas (DA Gas). Original purchase order dated 01.04.2019 was amended twice on the basis of representations made by the respondent no.2. First amendment was made on 18.07.2019 by which rate was increased from Rs.1.55 per unit to Rs.1.65 per unit and second amendment was made on 20.12.2019 through which rate per unit was brought down to Rs.1.48 from Rs.1.65. An invoice was raised by respondent no.2 with aforesaid rates for a total sum of Rs.9,36,693.18/-. Dispute revolves around non-payment of said sum.

Findings of Court:

It is true that appellant could seek discharge in course of proceeding itself before concerned Court, but no case at all has been made out that would justify invoking machinery of Criminal Courts. Dispute, per se, is commercial in nature having no element of criminality.

Result : Appeal allowed. Criminal Complaint Case quashed.

JUDGMENT

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, at the material point of time, stood posted as the Head of factory of Exide Industries Limited (“EIL”), a corporate entity, situated at Bawal, District Rewari, Haryana. The respondent no.2, ran a proprietary concern, Ambika Gases. He was the supplier of Dissolved Acetylene Gas (“DA Gas”), which is used for manufacturing battery in the said factory. So far as the present appeal is concerned, the dispute is over a purchase order issued for the supply of the said item. The original purchase order dated 01.04.2019 was amended twice on the basis of representations made by the respondent no.2. The first amendment was made on 18.07.2019 by which the rate was increased from Rs.1.55 per unit to Rs.1.65 per unit and the second amendment was made on 20.12.2019 through which the rate per unit was brought down to Rs.1.48 from Rs.1.65. An invoice was raised by the respondent no.2 with the aforesaid rates for a total sum of Rs.9,36,693.18/-. The dispute revolves around non-payment of the said sum. However, it has been contended by the appellant that EIL, after ascertaining the market price of DA Gas from other vendors, by a letter dated 29.06.2020, reconciled the accounts by informing respondent no.2 of what it claimed was foul play with respect to revision of rates and appropriated the alleged illegal amounts claimed by the vendor (respondent no.2) from the invoice.

3. The respondent no.2 instituted a complaint case in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and the substance of the complaint would be revealed from the following passages of the petition of complaint (registered as Misc. Application No.317/2020):-

    “….The Applicant through his aboenamed work do the job work of D.A. Gas. Opposite Party Sachin Garg is posted as Material Head of Exide Industries Ltd. situated at Plot No. 179, Sector-3, Bawal, District- Rewari, Haryana and Opposite Party Sachin Garg also used to issue Purchase Order to the Applicant’s company on behalf of the Exide Company and only the Opposite Party Sachin Garg used to make payment of Job Work to the Applicant. Previously, the Transaction of Opposite Party was normal with the Applicant’s company and no problem was ever persisted in the payment, due to which, the Applicant started trusting on the Opposite Party and Company. Sachin Garg through the aforesaid company in the capacity of Purchase Head, issued Purchase Order to the Applicant’s Company, in which, it was agreed between the Opposite Party and Applicant to do job work @ Rs.1.65/- per piece w.e.f. 18.02.2019, which remained continued on the same rates till December, 2019 and the Opposite Party was regularly making the payment of job work to the Applicant on the same rates. In the month of December, in pursuance of the Purchase Order of Opposite Party, According to Purchase No. 4800253593 dated 01.04.2019, done the job work of Filled DA Gases HSN Code 290129910 quantity 3,07,114/- pieces @ Rs.165 to the tune of Rs.5,06,738.10/-, and Filled DA Gases H{SN Code 29012910 quantity 1,93,966/- pieces @ Rs.1.48 per piece to the tune of Rs. 2,87,069.68/- and 18% GST to the tune of Rs.1,42,885.40/-0, in this manner did the job work of total amount Rs.9,36,693.18/-. The material Head of Opposite Company namely Sachin Garg by admitting the job work done by the Applicant vide Purchaser Order No. 4800253593 dated 01.04.2019, and got done the job work according to the piece rate quoted by the Applicant. On 03.07.2020, Applicant sent Bill/Invoice No. AG.SR/20-21/01 dated 02.07.2020 of Rs.9,36,693.18/- to the Material Head of Opposite Party Company namely Sachin Garg through registered post and also sent the aforesaid invoice through email on 14.07.2020, which were received by Opposite Party Sachin Garg. Applicant repeatedly requested the Opposite Party for payment through email, but, the Opposite Party did not make payment of Rs.9,36,693.18/- of job work done by the Applicant Company in the month of Dec

          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