Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot quash proceedings if sufficient allegations under Sections 417 and 420 IPC are present, irrespective of an arbitration clause in the contract.

JUDGMENT :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate, Mr. H. Rahman assisted by Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No. 2.

2. This application has been filed under Section 482 CrPC r/w Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for quashing of the C.R. Case No. 17/2020 pending before the learned JMFC, Dimapur.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 417 and 420 CrPC. It was registered as C.R. Case No. 17/2022 and is pending before the Court of JMFC, Dimapur.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the matter involved in the C.R. Case No. 17/2022 is of Civil Nature and does not involve any criminal offence. Another contention of the petitioner is that the company which was involved in the alleged offence has not been made a party and therefore, on this ground alone, the criminal proceeding needs to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel also submits that the ingredients of Section 417 and 420 CrPC are not attracted in the present case as there was no inducement or illegal intention to cheat.

5. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the MoU dated 01.06.2021 was signed between the Darjeeling Organic Tea Estates Private Limited, as first party and the respondent No. 1 as second party. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 already knew that the Jamguri Tea Estate was under mortgage with the UCO Bank as indicated from the letter dated 31.05.2021, which was written by the respondent No. 1 to the Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Kolkata. In the said letter dated 31.05.2021, the respondent No. 1 had stated that she visited the Jamguri Tea Estate and had shown interest in taking over the Tea Estate and has also stated that the management of Darjeeling Organic Tea Estate Private Limited had informed her that the said Darjeeling Organic Tea Estate is under mortgage with the bank. Thereafter, the MoU dated 01.06.2021 was signed. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the respondent No.1 did not know that the Jamguri Tea Estate was under mortgage with the bank.

6. Learned Senior counsel states that the MoU was signed between the company and the respondent No. 1 and not with the petitioner. The petitioner had only signed the MoU as an authorised signatory and if the company is not impleaded as a party, the proceeding of the criminal complaint needs to be quashed by this Court. Learned Senior counsel also states that there is an Arbitration Clause in the MoU and the respondent No. 1 instead of availing the arbitration proceeding has filed the complaint case and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law.

7. The petitioner states that he had filed an application before the learned Trial Court praying for discharge of the petitioner. However, by order dated 16.11.2022, the said petition was dismissed and further, the Trial Court made further observations on facts which have not even been led by way of evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has now resigned from the company and his resignation was accepted vide letter dated 03.08.2022 and the petitioner was released with effect from 31.07.2022. Therefore, in view of his resignation and the MoU being with the co