Criminal proceedings should not be scuttled at the initial stage, and quashing of complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records in Crime No.10 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same in so far as the petitioner concern.)

1. The present Criminal Original Petition is filed seeking to quash the First Information Report [F.I.R.] in Crime No.10 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent - Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Trichy City.

2. The petitioner is the Accused No.1 [hereinafter referred to as ‘first accused’ for the sake of convenience] in Crime No.10 of 2020 on the file of the Central Crime Branch, Trichy City.

3. The brief facts of the case of the third respondent [hereinafter referred to as ‘de facto complainant’ for the sake of convenience] reads as under:

(a) The de facto complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Kuberaa Global Impex and is engaged in the business of trading rice and other products. He got an order from M/s.Sreeman Traders of Andra Pradesh for supply of 720 Metric tons of 5% broken rice to Venezuela during May, 2020. Michael Raju who is the third accused in Crime No.10 of 2020 introduced the first accused to the de facto complainant. The first accused gave an assurance to the de facto complainant that he would supply 720 Metric tons of 5% broken rice within a reasonable time and also received 20% of invoice amount i.e., Rs.47,50,000/- as advance through RTGS transfer from the de facto complainant. Though the first accused informed the de facto complainant that the process of packing rice was going on, he did not give him any details in this regard. However, during August, 2020, the first accused insisted the de facto complainant to pay the remaining 80% of the invoice amount. The de facto complainant requested the first accused to produce the details of loading. Therefore, the first accused sent a Draft Bill of Lading dated 10.08.2020 to the de facto complainant. Upon receipt of the said Draft Bill of Lading, the de facto complainant paid a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- on 20.08.2020, Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.08.2020 and Rs.64,08,039/- on 05.09.2020 to the first accused. Thus, the de facto complainant had made total payment of Rs.2,01,58,039/- to the first accused.

(b) Subsequently, the de facto complainant came to know about the forged documents created by the first accused through one Mr.Navjodh Singh Sahota. The de facto complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the second respondent - Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Trichy and FIR in Crime No.10 of 2020 was registered. The said FIR was later transferred to the Serious Crime Cell, Trichy City.

(c) The first accused filed an Anticipatory Bail Petition before this Court and same was dismissed. He thereafter filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed. Subsequently, the first accused filed the present Criminal Original Petition to quash the FIR on the following grounds:

i. The first accused had incurred heavy loss due to the cancellation of shipment.

ii. The de facto complainant could have filed a Civil Suit for recovery of money and he had falsely implicated him in the criminal complaint.

iii. The dispute between the parties is purely commercial in nature which can be decided only by a competent Civil Court.

iv. Since all the transactions took place in Delhi, the Central Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the de facto complainant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/first accused reiterated the contentions mentioned in the affidavit and submitted that the entire FIR should be quashed.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.Suresh, the learned counsel for the second respondent/de facto complainant contended that the present petitioner/first accused filed Anticipator