Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Suraj Govindaraj, J.
Naveen - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100759 of 2017
Decided On : 01-10-2020
Srinival B Naik, Advocate, Ramesh Chigari, Advocate, Satish M S, Advocate
The main legal point established is that when a civil suit has conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties, there may be no purpose in continuing parallel criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
FIR Quashing - Commercial Dispute - IPC 406, 420 - The court discussed the facts and circumstances of the case, including the dispute over the supply of machinery and the subsequent civil suit. The court analyzed the allegations of cheating and the previous civil judgment, ultimately quashing the criminal complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and complaint for offenses under IPC 406 and 420, arising from a commercial dispute over the supply of machinery. The complainant alleged delay and non-supply of machinery, while the petitioner claimed readiness to supply as per the contract.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil suit had conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties, and there was no purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings. The previous judgment rejecting the complainant's claims was a key factor in the court's decision to quash the complaint.
Issues: The key issues were whether there was a prima facie case of cheating and whether the court should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the previous civil judgment, which rejected the complainant's claims, to conclude that there was no purpose in continuing the criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the civil suit had conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the complaint in Crime No.26/2016 was quashed.
JUDGMENT
Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the FIR and complaint in Crime No.26/2016 of the Hosapete Extension Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:
2.1 The petitioner is stated to be carrying on the business of supplying of Automatic Paper Cup Forming Machines.
2.2 Since the complainant was intending to start paper cup production unit, the complainant approached the petitioner for supply of two Cup Star Ultra Model Machines and after negotiations the petitioner agreed to supply two sets of Cup Star Ultra Model Machines as per the design and specification of the complainant at the rate of Rs.11,83,200/-.
2.3 It was further agreed between them that, 50% of the advance amount i.e., Rs.5,80,000/- was to be paid at the time of the order and balance at the time of delivery.
2.4 The complainant deposited a sum quantified to 25% of the agreed amount i.e., Rs.2,83,200/- and insisted on the petitioner to supply the machines. However, the petitioner reminded to the complainant that the entire amount as agreed had not been paid, despite which the complainant did not make any payment and insisted on the petitioner to supply the machines.
2.5 On 18.08.2014, the complainant alleging that there was delay in supplying the machinery and terminated the contract and called upon the petitioner to refund the advance amount along with certain other amounts claimed as losses suffered by the complainant on account of the delay in supply.
2.6 The petitioner replied on 18.11.2014 stating that, since the machines are ready for delivery, the complainant ought to take delivery and make payment of the balance amount, more so, for the reason that the machinery had been specifically designed and assembled as per the requirement of the complainant. This was followed up with a remark on 16.12.2014.
2.7 The complainant on 18.12.2014 replied stating that the complainant was no longer interested in taking delivery of the machine and called upon the petitioner to make payment of monies as sought for in the letter dated 18.08.2014.
2.8 When the petitioner did not refund the monies, the respondent No.2/complainant filed the aforesaid complaint alleging that the petitioner has cheated the complainant inasmuch as the petitioner has collected the monies and is refusing to refund the same despite being called upon to do so.
2.9 It is alleging that the said complaint is totally false, frivolous, vexatious and filed with an intention to harass the petitioner, more so when the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant are of civil in nature, the petitioner is before this Court by way of above petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
3. On service of notice respondent No.2 the de-facto complainant has entered appearance and filed his objections contending that:
3.1 The reduction in the advance amount is as agreed between the parties. The advance payment was made on 22.05.2014. The machines were to be delivered within 35-45 days thereon. However, they are not so delivered.
3.2 Therefore, the complainant by way of his letters dated 09.07.2014 and 17.07.2014 called upon the petitioner to supply the said machines.
3.3 Vide letter dated 18.08.2014, the complainant withdrawing the purchase order also called upon the petitioner to make payment of interest on the amount alleged to have been borrowed by the complainant, allegedly being paid to the premises taken on rent by the complainant as also other expenses incurred by the complainant in connection with the negotiations, traveling as also the profit that the complainant would have earned by making use of the said machinery.
3.4 The complainant had filed the complaint on 31.12.2014 against the petitioner, wherein the presence of the petitioner was secured and there was a kind of compromise arrived at directing the petitioner to make payment of the monies received. However, the
