Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K. SOMASHEKAR, J.
R.C. Sodani S/o R.P. Sodani – Petitioner
Versus
The State Rep. by State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2876 of 2016
Decided On : 06-02-2021
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.301, S.173(2), S.482, S.154, S.156(1), S.155(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.406, S.420, S.34
TRANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ACT : S.22
Headnote
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 406, 420 read with 34 - Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973 - Section 301, 173(2) , 154 and 155(2) - Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 - Section 34 and 14 - Offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Criminal Breach od trust -Act done by several persons – Charged - First petitioner is Executive Director, second and third petitioners are Senior Sales Officer and Deputy General Manager of Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited respectively and said industry is a Pubic Limited Company manufacturing cement having its unit at Bagalkot and said Company has a good reputation in manufacturing good quality cement for last sixty years - Company is equipped with its own laboratories to test quality of cement at every stage - Raw materials and components used in manufacture of cement are being tested at appropriate stage and monitored to see that ISI standard as prescribed, are maintained - Company agreed to supply cement at the construction site as stipulated by Naidu Constructions - Pursuant to letter dated by Naidu constructions, Company supplied totally 1124 metric Tons of OPC cement during period –
Finding of the Court:
ingredients are even though are absent to constitute offence, Udupi Town Police Station have registered a case merely because filing of a complaint against accused as there is no direct involvement of this accused in commission of an offence in respect of criminal breach of trust as per Section 420 of I.P.C. 1860 by cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Since accused who were not at all in picture in respect of the allegations made against them - Dispute emerged between petitioners and second respondent are civil in nature - Though remedies are available in order to initiate other proceedings, complainant has chosen to initiate criminal prosecution by filing written complaint in his letter head by approaching Udupi Town Police Station and consequently, registered - In view of above discussion, by referring the materials as well as ratio of reliance''s Court have no hesitation in quashing FIR in Cr. No. 86 of 2016 registered by Udupi Town Police Station against petitioners/accused herein –
Result: Petition is allowed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, Sri. S.B. Hebbali.
For the Respondents: Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Sri. Biju B.
ORDER :
1. Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. S.B. Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP for the first Respondent-State are physically present before the Court. Sri. Biju V. learned counsel appearing for Smt. Mamatha Shetty, counsel for the second respondent is appearing through video conference and submits a note of Section 34 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 in respect of cognizance of offences by Courts. However, the role of second respondent who is the defacto-complainant is only limited extent as per Section 301 of Cr.P.C. but only for assisting HCGP for State.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner and HCGP for State and perused the entire materials placed on record.
3. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR in Cr. No. 86/2016 of Udupi Town Police Station, Udupi pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. The factual matrix of the petition is that the first petitioner is the Executive Director, second and third petitioners are the Senior Sales Officer and Deputy General Manager of Bagalkot Cement and Industries Limited respectively and the said industry is a Pubic Limited Company manufacturing the cement having its unit at Bagalkot and the said Company has a good reputation in manufacturing good quality cement for the last sixty years. The Company is equipped with its own laboratories to test the quality of the cement at every stage. The raw materials and the components used in the manufacture of cement are being tested at appropriate stage and monitored to see that the ISI standard as prescribed, are maintained. The fact being so, one M/s. Naidu Constructions, Bengaluru held negotiations with the Company for supplying of cement construction. After finalization of the negotiations, the Company agreed to supply the cement at the construction site as stipulated by the Naidu Constructions. Pursuant to the letter dated 26.11.2015 by the Naidu constructions, the Company supplied totally 1124 metric Tons of OPC cement during the period from 27.11.2015 to 10.02.2016. This being the state of affairs, one Dr. Umesh Prabhu who is the second respondent herein claiming to be the Chairman and Managing Director of Gokul Super Specialty Hospital, Vasundhara Nagar, Malpe, Udupi filed a complaint before the Udupi Town Police Station on 18.03.2016, alleging that the petitioners have supplied substandard quality cement for the constructions of their hospital at Udupi and thereby, the petitioners cheated the complainant. Based upon the compliant, the Udupi Town police have registered a FIR against the petitioners in Cr. No. 86/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the letter head of the second respondent. But the allegations made in the complaint as well as the detailed contentions made in its letter head are civil in nature, on that ground alone, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.
6. The second limb of the arguments addressed by the learned senior counsel is that the allegations made in the complaint gives rise to the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of Bagalkot Court, hence, Udupi police station has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the matter. It is further argued that the Company is manufacturing good quality cement for the last sixty years and there is no complaint regarding the quality of cement from any customer so far. Hence, it cannot be believed that the company has supplied substandard cement to the complainant. Before lodging FIR against the petitioner’s Company, the police ought to have observed that the company is fully equipped with its own quality control di
