Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARVIND SRIVASTAVA, J.
Alok Prakash Gupta Proprietor "M/S Alok Prakash Gupta" Son Of Late Jamuna Prasad Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Opposite Party
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15400 of 2014
Decided On : 24-08-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv., Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Pranav Kumar.
The central legal point established is that criminal prosecution is not warranted for purely civil disputes.
Headnote:
Inherent Jurisdiction - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Civil Dispute
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the order taking cognizance against them for offences under sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, arguing that the dispute was purely civil in nature and the criminal prosecution was unwarranted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the dispute was indeed purely civil in nature and that the criminal prosecution was not warranted at all.
Issues: Whether the criminal prosecution was warranted for the civil dispute and whether the order taking cognizance should be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court to conclude that the criminal prosecution was not warranted for the purely civil dispute.
Final Decision: The application to quash the order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code was allowed, and the order was quashed.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner, by means of this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the order dated 09.07.2012, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia in K. Hatt (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 288 of 2011, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no offence against the petitioner is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with mala fide intention for the purposes of harassment. The matter involved in purely civil in nature. This is a case of dispute of accounting in business transaction. Product was sold to the petitioner on credit and there was no entrustment of property. As a matter of fact, petitioner had returned some products which were bad in quality and not fit for sale, but the informant is making pressure for payment for those products also. Petitioner was served a legal notice, which also shows that there was no entrustment of any property. Perusal of the first information report shows that there are no ingredients of section 420 or 406 I.P.C. In support of his submissions for quashing the order taking cognizance, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases, 699, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 736, (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 696 and (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 348.
4. From perusal of the materials available on record and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage, this Court finds force in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The dispute involved is purely civil in nature for which a criminal prosecution is not at all warranted.
5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order dated 09.07.2012, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnia in K. Hatt (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 288 of 2011, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, quashed.
