SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(J&K) 612

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Tashi Rabstan, J.
Suresh Chand -Appellant
Versus
Ishan Industries (M-s) -Resopndent
OWP No. 8-2013, C.M.A. No. 09-2013
Decided On : 06-11-2013

Advocates Appeared:
K.S. Johal, Amit Gupta, Sunil Sethi, Veenu Gupta.

Criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta, and the court has the power to quash criminal proceedings if they are an abuse of the court's process.

Headnote:

Cheating - Commercial Dispute - Sections 406/409/420 RPC - The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence, and the process initiated against the petitioner was deemed an abuse of the court's process.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a proprietor of a food grains business, filed a suit for recovery against the respondent, a proprietorship concern, for non-payment of balance amount for mustard seeds supplied. The respondent, instead of contesting the suit, filed a complaint against the petitioner under Sections 406/409/420 RPC. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the complaint and the order of cognizance taken by the trial court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence, and the process initiated against the petitioner was an abuse of the court's process. The court quashed the complaint and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the summoning order issued by the trial court.

Issues: The issues involved the alleged non-payment of balance amount for mustard seeds supplied by the petitioner to the respondent, and the subsequent filing of a complaint by the respondent under Sections 406/409/420 RPC against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint did not disclose any criminal offence, and the process initiated against the petitioner was an abuse of the court's process. The court also emphasized that criminal prosecution should not be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the complaint and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the summoning order issued by the trial court.

1. Petitioner is a Proprietor of M/s. Suresh Chand Subash Chand and deals in the business of sale and purchase of food grains from New Anaj Mandi, Ateli, District Narnual, Haryana. The respondent is a Proprietorship Concern and has installed a Mill in the name of M/s. Ishan Industries situated at Lane No. 6 SIDCO Industrial Complex, Bari Brahamana, Jammu for extracting the mustard oil. The raw-material for mustard oil is procured by the respondent from various places. The respondent has been dealing with the petitioner for purchasing mustard seeds since 2nd June, 2010 and has transacted business with him till 17.07.2011.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that he sold mustard seeds to respondent and part payment of the amount of sale consideration was made, but, an amount of Rs. 1,54,03,939.00 remained unpaid. The total amount payable as on 17.07.2011 inclusive of interest came to Rs. 1,56,74,270.00. Out of this, the respondent had paid an amount of Rs. 1,56,25,208.00 and remaining amount of Rs. 49,062/- was not paid. Hence, for non-payment of balance amount, petitioner issued legal notice dated 30.07.2011 through his counsel in which it was specifically stated to make the payment by depositing the same in his account or through Bank Draft within a period of 15 days, failing which suit for recovery would be filed against him.

3. On receipt of notice on 05.08.2011, the Manager of the respondent, namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sharma rang up on telephone No. 094191-99353, authorizing its Purchase Manager, Sh. Sumer Singh S/o: Sh. Bansi Lal Rajput R/o Nimrana to settle the accounts with the petitioner on behalf of the respondent and ensure the dispatch of Mustard Seeds to the respondent. Accordingly, under the instructions of Manager of the respondent-Firm, Sh. Sumer Singh, Purchase Manager had acknowledged the balance payment of Rs. 49,062/- due to the petitioner and also agreed to dispatch this amount in the account of petitioner. In this respect, an agreement was executed to this extent between Sumer Singh, Purchase Manager for and on behalf of the respondent and the petitioner, in presence of five other persons namely (1) Arvind S/o Sh. Babu Lal, (2) Giriraj S/o Sh. Nityanand, (3) Mangtu Singh S/o Sumer Singh, (4) Prem Singh S/o Sh. Shambudayal Yadav and (5) Ramanand S/o Sh. Ramchander Yadav, all residents of Ateli Mandi.

4. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that despite said agreement, balance payment of Rs. 49062/- was not made to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner had issued another notice dated 09.09.2011 to Sh. Ishan Dhar S/o Sh. Mahesh Dhar, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Ishan Industries, SIDCO Complex Phase No. 2, Lane No. 6, Industrial Area Bari Brahamana, Jammu and Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Manager of the respondent-M/s. Ishan Industries, wherein further 15 days' time was granted to make payment of the balance amount, failing which same would be claimed along with interest @ 18% per annum. Despite said notice, the respondent has failed to make the balance payment, thus compelled the petitioner to approach the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Narnaul by filing suit on 08.03.2012 for recovery of Rs. 49,062/- as Principal amount along with interest of Rs. 9125/-. Learned Additional Civil Judge, Narnual issued notice to the defendant/respondent herein, who, instead of contesting the said suit, filed complaint against the petitioner under Sections 406/409/420 RPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, which came to be committed to the Court of Special Municipal Magistrate, Jammu. The trial Court vide order dated 03.07.2012 issued process against the petitioner. Aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2012 issued by the learned Special Municipal Magistrate, Jammu, the petitioner has filed writ petition on hand, seeking following relief:

"Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir further read with section 561-A of





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top