Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Shiv Jatia – Appellant
Versus
Gian Chand Malick & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.776 of 2024 with Criminal Appeal No.777 of 2024
Decided on : 23-02-2024
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 472 read with Section 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 202 and 482 – Breach of Distributorship Agreement – High Court has not recorded cogent reasons for not entertaining prayer for quashing complaint – Only reason given by High Court is that there were disputed questions of fact, and controversy can be decided only after evidence is recorded – Order issuing process has drastic consequences – Such orders require application of mind – Such orders cannot be passed casually – Magistrate was not justified in passing order to issue summons – Entire dispute is of a civil nature arising out of a commercial transaction – Taking complaint and documents relied upon by 1st respondent–complainant as correct, no case was made in complaint or in evidence of 1st respondent to proceed against appellants – Continuing complaint against appellants will amount to abuse of process of law – Case is made out for quashing complaint as against appellants – Impugned judgment set aside insofar as appellants are concerned – Complaint will proceed against rest of accused. (Paras 11, 12, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Appellants in these two appeals filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for quashing said complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 472 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and for quashing summoning order dated 16th July 2013 passed on the said complaint. High Court, by impugned judgment dated 25th August 2014, dismissed the said petition.
Findings of Court:
Complaint bearing Criminal Complaint no.128 dated 17th July 2004 pending in Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chandigarh is, hereby, quashed only insofar as appellants are concerned. Complaint will proceed against rest of accused. Other accused can raise appropriate defences at the time of framing charge or Trial. Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms with no order as to costs.
Result : Appeals partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal no.776 of 2024 is the accused no.2 in the complaint filed by the 1st Respondent-complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.PC’) alleging the commission of offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 472 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Section 13 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellants in Criminal Appeal no.777 of 2024 are the accused nos.1, 4 and 5 in the same Complaint. The appellants in these two appeals filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for quashing the said complaint and for quashing the summoning order dated 16th July 2013 passed on the said complaint. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dated 25th August 2014, dismissed the said petition.
2. On 23rd September 2002, under the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributorship Agreement (for short, ‘the Distributorship Agreement’), the accused no.1 – M/s.Energy Infrastructure (India) Limited (for short, ‘the accused company’) appointed the 2nd respondent-accused no.7 (Arun Sharma, Proprietor of M/s.Arshya Max Agencies) as a distributor for distribution of LPG cylinders in the areas of Panchkula and Chandigarh. The 2nd respondent, on behalf of the accused company, purported to execute a Point of Sale agreement on 7th March 2003 (for short, ‘the POS agreement’) by which he purported to appoint the 1st Respondent-complainant as a sales outlet (Point of Sale) in the town of Dhanas to sell MaxGas to the consumers. By the POS agreement, the 2nd respondent agreed to pay a flat rate commission per cylinder sold by the 1st Respondent-complainant. A demand draft in the sum of Rs.74,900/- was issued in favour of the accused company by the 1st Respondent-complainant.
3. The accused company addressed a letter dated 3rd March 2004 to the 2nd respondent alleging serious lapses in customer services rendered by the 2nd respondent, which allegedly caused a big dent in the reputation of the accused company. Various instances of lapses in service were set out in the said letter. The accused company also stated that the 2nd respondent had illegally supplied the cylinders to the 1st Respondent-complainant beyond the assigned territory in Punjab. It was specifically stated in the said letter that the name of the 1st Respondent-complainant was not reflected in the records of the accused company as a Point of Sale. The accused company alleged that, thus, the 2nd respondent had committed a breach of the Distributorship Agreement. Another allegation in the said letter was that a cheque issued by the 2nd respondent had been dishonoured.
4. A private complaint was filed by the 1st Respondent-complainant on 17th July 2004 before the Illaqa Magistrate, Chandigarh. The allegation in the said complaint is that the 2nd respondent, along with accused nos.5 and 6, approached the 1st Respondent-complainant and disclosed that they were involved in the business of manufacturing and selling LPG. The 1st Respondent-complainant has relied upon the alleged information furnished by the three accused and their representations. There is an allegation that the accused allured the 1st Respondent-complainant to join hands with them and relinquish his old venture of supplying LPG in the market. The 1st Respondent-complainant alleged in the complaint that while the POS agreement was executed on 7th March 2004, he paid a sum of Rs.74,900/- to the accused company by way of a demand draft. It is alleged that the accused company encashed the said demand draft. Further allegation in the complaint is that the 1st Respondent-complainant paid the security deposit for 360 empty cylinders at the rate of Rs.700/- per cylinder to the accused and received the cylinders/refills. Based on the assurance that the accused company will supply at least 600 refills against 300 empty cyli
Order issuing process has drastic consequences – Such orders require application of mind – Such orders cannot be passed casually.
The amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry before issuing summons against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction, to prevent false complaints....
The court upheld the trial court's decision to issue summons based on specific allegations of cheating and forgery, affirming the necessity of a prima facie case without quashing the proceedings.
Summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter – Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course – In order issuing summons, Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil dispute does not get converted into a criminal offence without satisfying the essential elements of the alleged provisions, and there ....
A second complaint on the same cause of action after acceptance of a final report is maintainable only in exceptional circumstances; summoning orders must reflect judicial application of mind.
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
