The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations regarding the rent of the crane should be subject to civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings, and allowing the criminal proceeding to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-1 Case No.1202/2007 including the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

“The complaint has been filed alleging that the complaint case has been filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 26.07.2007 wherein he has alleged that the complainant is authorized representative of M/s BISCO Steel Udyog Pvt. Ltd. who was in search of Crawler Mounted Crane for their work at Purulia for implementation of project. The accused are engaged in business of hiring different cranes and accused no.2 and 3 approached the Director of Complainant company for hiring 955A crawler mounted crane and thereafter an offer letter dated 08.04.2004 was issued by the accused no.2 and 3 on agreed terms and conditions between both the parties.

The clause no.2 of the said offer letter no.SIEL/2004-2005 dated 08.04.2004 is as follows:

Clause 2. Hiring Period of Charges

Rs.8,00,000/- for minimum guarantee period of 4 months and thereafter @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month or part thereof.

The clause no.7 of the said offer letter no.SIEL/2004-2005 dated 08.04.2004 is as follows:

Clause 7 Payment of Hire charges

a) One month’s charge i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in advance before dismantling of the 955A, crawler mounted crane for transportation to your (complainant) site. This advance will be adjusted against last monthly bill before redelivery of the crane safe and sound condition.

b) Billing will be done on monthly basis and shall be payable within 7 days from the date of submission by demand draft of bank at Kolkata, the DD charges will be paid in our account.

As per the clause 7(a) of the said offer letter the complainant paid the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash which was duly acknowledged by accused no.2 and 3. And thereafter on the same date the crane was delivered to the complainant.

The accused persons raised their first bill No.SEI/2004-05/WC/052 dated 13.05.2004 the period of 15.04.2004 to 14.05.2004, which was paid by the complainant through cheque no.296104 dated 26.05.2004, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- only drawn on HDFC Bank, Main branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and the accused persons duly acknowledged issuing the money receipt dated 27.05.2004 as a token of having receipt the aforesaid amount from complaint.

The accused persons raised their second bill no.SIE/2004-05/WC/081 dated 07.06.2004 for the period of 15.05.2004 to 13.06.2004 which was paid by the complainant through cheque no.025799 dated 16.6.2004 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- only drawn on HDFC bank, Main branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and the accused persons duly acknowledged issuing the money receipt dated 17.6.2004 as a token of having receipt the aforesaid amount from complaint.

The accused persons raised their third bill no.SIE/2004-05/WC/112 dated 06.07.2004 for the period of 14.06.2004 to 13.07.2004.

The operator of the crane, who was the employee of the accused no.1 and 2 appointed as personnel to operate control and supervise the crane and work who left the working place without informing the complainant or any other authority of the complainant for the second half of the working period.

The complainant had to suffer with loss so the complainant deducted half day charges from the third bill raised by the accused persons, i.e. amounting to Rs.3,333/- only and rest amount Rs.1,96,667/- has been paid through cheque no.025811 dated 20.07.2004 drawn on HDFC bank, Main branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur.

The accused persons raised their fourth bill no.SIE/2004-05/WC/141 dated 06.08.2004 for the period of 14.07.2004 to 12.08.2007. Although the accused should have to adjust the said bill against the about paid in advance, but he did not do so with ill intention.

The complainant was need of the crane further six months because the project was not completed, so with a letter of request and because of the brake down crane was