( 1 ) RULE. In both these applications, Ms. Manisha Shah, learned APP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. Utpal Panchal, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 2. With the consent of the parties, both the matters are taken up for hearing today.

( 2 ) INSTEAD of approaching Civil Court for getting appropriate money decree, the complainant has rushed before the Criminal Court by filing these complaints. The tendency of filing criminal cases in the matter of a civil nature is increasing day-by-day, perhaps with a view to see that the complainant may get quick result of his case.

( 3 ) SO far as Criminal Misc. Application No. 11145 of 2004 is concerned, the respondent No. 2 has filed the said complaint against the applicants, i. e. , a limited company and its directors under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 (1) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat as Criminal Case No. 1595 of 2003. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the applicants No. 2 and 3 have represented to respondent No. 2 that if the coal is sold to them, the payment will be made as per the prevailing commercial practice and if there is any delay in payment they will pay him 3% interest every month on such delayed payment. As per the averment made in paragraph 2 of the complaint, an amount of Rs. 37,083/- is outstanding from the accused and despite the demand it has not been paid. It is also averred in paragraph 3 of the complaint that the complainant sent his manager at the office of the accused for recovering the aforesaid amount but the manager was subjected to threat and was warned not to enter the office of the accused again otherwise he will face serious consequences. The complainant, thereafter, gave notice dated 31st March, 2003 through his advocate for demanding the aforesaid amount. However, the said notice has not been replied nor any payment is made by the accused. Under these circumstances, aforesaid complaint is filed by invoking provisions of Indian Penal Code as narrated herein above. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat, thereafter issued process under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 (1) and 114 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the applicants have filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11145/2004 challenging the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process under the aforesaid complaint.

( 4 ) THE complainant thereafter filed another complaint on identical averments except the amount, which was mentioned as Rs. 48,487/ -. The said complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 1596 of 2003 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surat. Both the complaints are verbatim except the outstanding amount which is shown to be different. Learned Magistrate also issued process in second complaint. Therefore, the applicants have filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 11146 of 2004 challenging the process issued by the learned Magistrate with regard to the second complaint.

( 5 ) AS stated earlier, both the complaints are similar in nature and allegations made therein are also identical, not only that, the parties are also same in both the complaint and, therefore, both these applications are taken up for final hearing together.

( 6 ) ON reading both the complaints, it is clear that the complaints are filed only in order to recover outstanding dues of the complainant. The complainant instead of drafting a plaint has filed aforesaid complaints before the learned Magistrate by changing its nomenclature from Civil Suit to Criminal Case. Nowhere in the aforesaid complaints, the complainant has stated as to on which date the incident in connection with ill-treatment to his manager had taken place. Even nothing is stated as to on which date the manager of the complainant went to the office of the accused for the purpose of demanding money. The dispute in question is nothing but a dispute regardi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document