IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J.
Athaluri Veeranjaneya Prasad Alias Anjaneya Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
C.R.R. 1615 of 2020 With IA No. CRAN 1 of 2022
Decided On : 30-06-2022
Abuse of Process of Court - Criminal Liability - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B/420/406/409
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Director of a construction company, was implicated in a criminal case arising from a dispute with a sub-contractor. The complainant alleged non-payment and fraud, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The court found no evidence of criminal liability on the petitioner's part and quashed the proceedings against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's role was that of a business partner and there was no evidence of fraud or criminal intent. It cited the Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. case to emphasize that settling civil disputes through criminal prosecution should be discouraged.
Issues: The main issue was whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were justified, given the nature of the dispute and the lack of evidence of criminal intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to support the criminal allegations against the petitioner and the potential abuse of the court's process. It emphasized the need to discourage settling civil disputes through criminal prosecution.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, finding no evidence of criminal liability and citing the potential abuse of the court's process. It allowed the Investigating Officer to submit the Police Report before the Jurisdictional Court.
JUDGMENT
Ananda Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner assailing the criminal proceeding against him, arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No.202 of 2020 dated 09.09.2020 under Sections 120B/420/406/409 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The fact of the case in brief is that SRC Company Infrastructure Private Limited is a company incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad and it undertakes construction of building and civil engineering works. Petitioner is one of the two Directors of the said company which have its registered office at Anjai Nagar, Gac----, Hyderabad, Telengana.
3. SRC Company in course of regular business took up a civil construction work of raw water reservoir at Mali and allied works of Ultra Super Critical Coal based Thermal Power Project at Godda, Jharkhand. A work order was issued by Adani Infra (India Private Limited) in favour of SRC Company Infrastructure Private Limited in December, 2019. For the purpose of execution of the said work certain works were required to be undertaken on behalf of the SRC company and as a part of the exercise, another Work Order dated 06.12.2019 was issued by SRC Company Infra Private Limited in favour of Ambica Construction Company which is represented by Proforma accused/opposite party no.5. The said Ambica Construction Company on its part delegated some of its work under the work order dated 06.12.2019 to M/s. Laxmi Stone Work of Dumka, Jharkhand which is represented by the de facto complainant (OP No.2). The rates on which the work was offered to M/s. Laxmi Stone Works were mentioned in the work order/communication.
4. Subsequently, the de facto complainant and his men representing M/s. Laxmi Stone Works stopped the work as was agreed with Ambica Construction Company. The petitioner and SRC company Infra Private Limited were committed to the main work for which the service order was issued by Adani. Due to stoppage of work a severe loss was suffered by the petitioner and SRC company as well as Adani. The de facto complainant M/s. Laxmi Stone Works after being initially satisfied and after accepting the terms and conditions discussed with SRC company, started raising disputes upon issuance of the work order on 07.02.2020 and refused to undertake the work in terms of the work order. The de facto complainant with an ulterior motive of putting the petitioner in trouble implicated him in a false criminal case with unauthorized claim for money. The defacto complainant first raised an unauthorized bill dated 17.02.2020 which was beyond the scope of the work order issued in favour of the de facto complainant. When dispute was raised regarding acceptability and genuineness of the claim made in the bill, the de facto complainant lodged a F.I.R. before Hare Street police station on false allegation. The case was registered under the order of Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Kolkata Police and Hare Street Police Station/ Detective Department/Anti - Cheating Section of Kolkata Police and started investigation. Petitioner contended that O.P. No.2, the complainant stated that he deployed men and machinery at Godda, Jharkhand on assurance of getting of rental service charge together with the requisite GST amount and furthermore alleged that he ultimately raised all bill/tax - invoice dated 17.02.2020 on the alleged buyer SRC/Company Private Limited, for an amount of Rs.1,03,01,400/- (Rupees one crore three lakhs one thousand and four hundred only) inclusive of his rental service charges for machines and other expenses, like GST and SGST.
5. According to the petitioner, the complainant stated that he was compelled to lodge the complaint as his Bill with tax invoice was not being paid. The defacto complainant disclosed that Nitesh Himmatsinghka, the son of the elder brother of the mother of defacto complainant made a representation before him that he had got a job of excavation
Settling civil disputes through criminal prosecution should be discouraged, and criminal liability requires evidence of intent and wrongdoing.
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained when the allegations do not constitute a criminal offence and are primarily civil in nature.
The main legal point established is that criminal courts should not be used to settle civil disputes, and a breach of contract does not automatically lead to criminal prosecution for cheating.
The court found that the allegations made in the criminal complaints are prima facie and require a thorough investigation. The documents failed on the twin parameters of reliability and trustworthine....
Criminal proceedings should not be used as a shortcut for civil disputes, and a mere breach of promises related to payment or repayment does not ipso facto constitute criminal breach of trust without....
The court ruled that allegations of misappropriation and forgery in the FIR were unfounded, emphasizing that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal litigation.
Illegal gratification - FIR Quashed - Saving inherit powers of High Court - Power to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P. C should be resorted to in rearest....
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.