The central legal point established is that the existence of an arbitration clause in a contract does not bar the aggrieved party from initiating criminal proceedings against the breaching party if a criminal offense is prima facie made out.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral) - The petitioner herein instituted, a complaint, under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C,, 1973 before, the learned Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate concerned pronounced thereon, an order for registration of an F.I.R., against, one Mohinder Nath Sofath, for his allegedly committing offences, under, Sections 420 and 406 IPC read with Section 34 I.P.C. The Investigating Officer, after, completing Investigations, filed, a report before the learned Court concerned, wherein he made proposal(s) for cancelling the apposite F.I.R. The learned Magistrate concerned, accepted, the proposal meted before him, by the Investigating Officer concerned. The reason for his accepting, the proposals made by the Investigating Officer, arose (i) from existence of a partnership agreement inter se one Veena Gupta and one Mohinder Nath Sofat, where-within, an arbitration clause No. 12 exists (ii) with echoing(s) therein of theirs ad-idem contracting to settle all contracted controversies erupting interse them, (iv) thereupon it, concluded, of the apposite arbitration clause, borne, in the apt agreement executed inter se Veena Gupta and one Mohinder Nath Sofat, rather warranting availment, by the aggrieved, (v) than her''s instituting criminal proceedings against one Mohinder Nath Sofat. Hence the complainant ascribing penal mis-demeanor(s) against, one Mohinder Nath Sofat, was dismissed, it being not maintainable. The complainant being aggrieved, by the pronouncement, made by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned hence preferred a revision petition therefrom, before the revisional Court. However, the latter Court affirmed the order of the learned trial Court. The complainant being aggrieved, has instituted the instant petition under, Section 482 Cr. P.C., 1973 before this Court. The Hon''ble Apex Court has in a judgement reported in State of Orissa and others vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan (2012) 4 SCC 547 , relevant paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter:-

"14. Further, the impugned order also notes that in view of the arbitration agreement between the agent and the Government, all the alleged violations fell within the purview of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, the respondent could not be held liable for any criminal offence. This observation is against the well settled principle of law that the existence of an arbitration agreement cannot take the criminal acts out of the jurisdiction of the courts of law.

On this aspect, in S.W, Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 241 , this Court has echoed the following views:

" 15- Looking to the complaint and the grievances made by the complainant therein and having regard to the agreement, it is clear that the dispute and grievances arise out of the said agreement. Clause 29 of the agreement provides for reference to arbitration in case of disputes or controversy between the parties and the said clause is wide enough to cover almost all sorts of disputes arising out of the agreement. As a matter of fact, it is also brought to our notice that the complainant issued a notice dated 3.10.1997 to the appellants invoking this arbitration clause claiming Rs. 15 lakhs. It is thereafter the present complaint was filed. For the alleged breach of the agreement in relation to commercial transaction, it is open to the Respondent 2 to proceed against the appellants for his redressal for recovery of money by way of damages for the loss caused, if any. Merely because there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, that cannot prevent criminal prosecution against the accused if an act constituting a criminal offence is made out even prima facie."

(Emphasis supplied)

emphatically rested the legal conundrum, qua maintainability(s), of criminal complaints against the contracting party concerned, arising, from breach of contract (b) especially when the apposite contract also embodies thereon an arbitration clause, for settling, all