A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is dishonest intention from the outset; judicial mind must be applied before directing police investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III for the State and Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the order dated 14.06.2023, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in connection with Complaint Case No. 3105 of 2023, whereby, exercising the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned court has been pleased to sent the complaint for registering the FIR and investigation. Further prayer is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding, arising out of Sonari P.S. Case no. 101 of 2023, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint case was filed, which was later on converted in to the FIR, alleging therein that the complainant is a reputed businessman and proprietor of M/s Vassu Enterprises, also a law-abiding citizen of Jamshedpur.

That no complaint has been filed by the complainant against the accused persons either in this court or in any court of law, prior to this application. The complainant does his business of Material Handling, House Keeping, loading-unloading and transporting to intended customers/Companies through his firm at locations in India on the basis of the contract. In the year 2010-11 M/s Balco Limited, Korba gave a contract to the complainant performed his job and completed the contract as assigned by the accused No. 1 Company.

It is alleged that after being satisfied with the performance of the complainant for the execution of the assigned job, the accused no. 1 Company through the accused no. 2, 6 and 7 approached the complainant and assigned further work contracts for handling the materials in the premises of the accused no. 1 company situated at different plants at Korba, Chhattisgarh, which has been properly executed by the complainant with fullest satisfaction, thereafter on 06.03.2013 one agreement was executed between the accused no. 1 and the firm of the complainant to perform the handling work of material and scrap for purchase of heavy types of equipment and other essential items and thereafter he compelled to borrow money in the tune of above 2 crores of Rupees from the Corporation Bank (Currently Union Bank). And started to execute the assigned work awarded to him.

Suddenly on 24.02.2015 the accused no. 1 through accused no. 5, 6 and 7 terminated the said agreements and detained the entire fleet of machines and equipment of the complainant of almost worth Rs. 2-3 Crore out of which few machines were returned to the complainant in adverse conditions and total machinery of housekeeping had been forcefully held by the accused persons and this intimation was given by the accused persons through several E-mail. Thereafter the complainant started correspondence with the accused persons and demanded an updated balance amount payable by them to the complainant against the work executed by him, service tax, security deposit, labour retention, etc. along with entire machinery and equipment then under the chairmanship of COO of the company Avinash Roy (accused No. 5) conducted a meeting in presence of the complainant and the plant head Deepak Prasad (accused no. 6) and Subhadeep Khan (accused No. 7) on 28.06.2015 and it was decided among them that within one month from the date of the meeting, the entire claim of the complainant will be settled, and all the equipment kept on the premises of the company will be retained.

It is further alleged that the accused persons did not honour the decision taken in the said meeting but some damaged equipment which was severely in damaged condition was returned to the complainant, but the remaining fleet of valuable machines and bill amount were held by them, in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant through emails but they turned it into a deaf ear.

It is averred that thereafter the complainant on 07.