IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Mohit Kumar Shah, J.
Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd. and ors. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar and ors. – Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.53325 of 2019
Decided On : 13-08-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating – Cognizance of offence – Before issuing process, criminal court should exercise great deal of caution and it is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence – Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law – Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged in as much as there is a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect interests of lenders/creditors. (Para 11)
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cheating – Cognizance of offence – Complaints filed by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been withdrawn by complainant-opposite party no. 2 and as far as present complaint is concerned, allegation in effect is regarding non-compliance of provisions of agreement – From allegations levelled and averments made in complaint petition ingredient of Section 420 IPC is not at all satisfied – Dispute between parties at the most can be said to be a civil dispute and same is being tried to be converted into a criminal dispute – Continuance of criminal proceedings against petitioners will be abuse of process of law – Criminal prosecution is fit to be quashed – Merely because accused persons might not have paid amount due and payable under agreement, same would not by itself amount to cheating and/or having committed offence under Section 420 IPC, as alleged – Order passed by Magistrate, summoning accused in a case instituted on a complaint made by complainant, should show application of mind – Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on satisfaction – If there is no such indication in a case where Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of power of criminal court – Criminal prosecution quashed. (Paras 17 to 19)
JUDGMENT :
The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the learned Court of A.C.J.M- I, Sitamarhi in Complaint Case No. 973 of 2018, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and other co-accused persons under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and summons have been issued vide order dated 21.01.2019 as also bailable warrant has been ordered to be issued vide order dated 28.03.2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint petition dated 02.07.2018 was filed before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi by one Ram Sakha Choudhary, opposite party no. 2 herein against four accused persons including the petitioners herein, who have been arrayed as accused nos. 1 and 4 respectively in the complaint petition. The said complaint petition has been numbered as Complaint Case No. 973 of 2018 wherein it has been alleged that the complainant-O.P. No. 2 owns a firm in the name and style of M/s. Ram Sakha Chaudhary and he is the Director of the said firm. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 i.e. the petitioner no. 1 herein, namely, Brahmputra Infrastructure Limited had been awarded a contract by the Water Resources Department under the Adhwara River Project relating to raising and strengthening of embankment on both sides of the river whereafter the petitioner no. 1 had opened an office at Sitamarhi and appointed two employees who had called the complainant to their office on 15.05.2012 and requested him that in view of the contract awarded to the petitioner no. 1, they want to get some work conducted through the firm of the complainant, whereupon work order was given to the complainant by the accused persons on 20.11.2012. Thereafter, the complainant and his firm had carried out work to the tune of Rs. 3,41,10,388/-(Three crore forty one lakh ten thousand & three hundred eighty eight). In the complaint petition it has been alleged that subsequently, as per agreed rate of diesel etc., a sum of Rs. 1,54,99,948/-was paid by the petitioners to the complainant after deduction of 1% T.D.S. as also paid a sum of Rs. 22,70,668/-on the head of expenses pertaining to site management, however, a sum of Rs. 97,56,938.12 had remained outstanding for payment. It is the further allegation of the complainant that the complainant had contacted the accused persons over telephone on several occasions whereafter four cheques of Rs. 2,50,000/-each were given, however, when the complainant had deposited the same in his bank account, the same stood bounced and could not be honoured on account of lack of funds in the account of the accused persons whereupon the complainant is stated to have filed two complaint cases bearing Complaint Case No. C1/1854/16 and Complaint Case No. C1/35/17 before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi, however, in the midst of the said proceedings the accused persons had contacted the complainant and had entered into an agreement with the complainant stating therein that the balance amount of Rs. 70,50,541/-will be paid in nine instalments and the said agreement dated 08.06.2017 was signed by the petitioner no. 2 on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 in presence of the co-accused no. 3. It has been further stated in the complaint petition by the complainant that after payment of three instalments totalling to a sum of Rs. 23,50,179.00 and a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-respectively, the complainant had withdrawn the aforesaid two complaints, however, thereafter the accused persons including the petitioners herein did not pay the balance outstanding amount as per the agreement to the tune of Rs. 37,00,362/-, hence the accused persons including the petitioners herein have cheated the complainant and had fraudulently entered into an agreement whereafter they have failed to comply with the terms of payment prescribed in the agreement. It has also been stated in the complaint petition that a legal notice dated 23.03.2018 was sen
Annapurna Devi & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors.
Bhushan Kumar and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another
Binod Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and Another
Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd.
Devendra and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited
Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttranchal & Ors.
M/s. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Private Limited vs. M/s. Biological E. Limited & Ors.
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
Mohammed Ibrahim and others Vs. State of Bihar and another
Murari Lal Gupta vs. Gopi Singh
National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another (2013) 2 SCC 488
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.