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

2011 Supreme(Pat) 188

PATNA HIGH COURT
Rakesh Kumar, J.
In The Matter Of An Application Under section 482 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure. partho Mukherjee S/o P. Mukherjee, area Sales Manager, Parle Agro pvt. Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. (In 12203) kishan Kothari S/o Late Amirchand kothari, Director, M/s Swastik Agro india Ltd., 25a, Janpath Unit-ill, bhubaneshwar, Orissa (In 30656)
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal MISCELLANEOUS No. 12203 of 2003 30656 of 2003
Decided On : JANUARY 31, 2011

The main legal point established is that individuals cannot be held responsible for offenses committed by others without proper evidence and consideration of their involvement.

Headnote:

Abuse of Process - Criminal Complaint - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 409, 120B

Fact of the Case:

The complaint alleged that the accused, including the petitioners, committed offenses under Sections 420, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code by fraudulently inducing the complainant to enter into a business agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners could not be held responsible for the offenses as the transactions were primarily between the complainant and accused no. 1. The court concluded that the order of cognizance was passed without proper application of mind and set it aside to prevent the abuse of the court's process.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be held responsible for the alleged offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners could not be held responsible for the actions of accused no. 1 and that the order of cognizance was passed without proper consideration of the facts and evidence.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order of cognizance against the petitioners and allowed the petitions.

JUDGEMENT

Rakesh Kumar, J.

1. Both the aforesaid petitions arise out of same impugned order and, as such, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment.

2. Both the aforesaid petitions were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 14.2.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 21(C) of 2002. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against seven accused persons, which include the petitioners in both the cases.

3. Short fact of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna vide Complaint Case No. 21(C) of 2002 on allegation against the petitioners and other accused persons for commission of offences under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed by the complainant that earlier he was appointed as Stockist of Parle Agro Bailley-Pure Drinking Water for the State of Bihar vide an agreement dated 3.7.2002 by accused no. 1, namely, Raman Kumar, Managing Director, M/s Gangotri Beverage, Jamshedpur. It was alleged that the complainant was given to understand that Gangotri Beverage was a franchisee unit of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai of Frooti brand and had thus authorized the said Gangotri Beverage as its franchisee unit to establish and start manufacturing of Parle Agro Bailley Pure Drinking Water and Gangotri Beverage was looking for business associates for Bihar. Accordingly, the complainant expressed his desire to contact Mr. Raman Kumar (accused no. 1), Managing Director of the Gangotri Beverage. The complainant visited Jamshedpur alongwith the witnesses. The complainant was, thereafter, shown the plan under construction at Ranchi- Jamshedpur Road near Mango, Jamshedpur After initial discussion, accused no. 1 demanded Rs. 3 Lacs as security deposit for appointment of the complainant as Stockist for the State of Bihar. The complainant disclosed that on different dates and by different modes including Bank Drafts, he made entire payment, break up of.the same has been given in detail in the complaint petition. A Notarized agreement was also executed. After the payment was made, the complainant was informed telephonically by accused no. 1 that due to some operational failure at the plant of Gangotri Beverage, Jamshedpur, initially supply will be made by M/s Swastik Agro India Ltd., which was also a licensed franchisee unit of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. However, no supply was made despite several telephonic reminders. Only single consignment of goods reached at Patna that, too, in fully damaged condition. The complainant, thereafter, informed accused no. 1 who, according to the complainant came to Patna on 26.7.2001 and after verifying the said damage goods agreed to re-supply the goods as per agreement norms dated 3.7.2001. One another consignment also was received by the complainant, for which as per agreement a Bill of Rs. 66,382.50 was sent to accused no. 1 through courier. Subsequently, a credit note of Rs. 24,060/- dated 1.8.2001 was communicated to the complainant by the office of accused no.1 with the statement of account signed and sealed by the Chartered Accountant for the Gangotri Beverage. For sometime business transaction of the complainant with accused no. 1 continued. However, on 30.9.2001 the complainant came to know that Gangotri Beverage, Jamshedpur was not a franchisee of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. In fact, Gangotri Beverage was an agent of M/s Swastick Agro India Ltd., Bhubaneshwar, who had authorized the Gangotri Beverage to book order and collect D.D. in favour of M/s Swastik Agro India Ltd., Bhubaneshwar. It was further alleged by the complainant that M/s Swastik Agro India Ltd., Bhubaneshwar had also authorized Gangotri Beverage to appoint Stockist/Dealer for Parle Bailley-Pure Wate





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
whatsapp-icon Back to top