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

2010 Supreme(Ori) 311

2010 (II) OLR — 243
B.K. PATEL, J.
Mukul Kumar Verma (in CRLMC No.1949/2008 and CRLMC No.2004/2009)
Chandra Sekharan Nair ...Petitioners
(in CRLMC No.661/2007)
Versus
State of Orissa (in all the cases)...Opp. Party
CRLMC No. 661 of 2007,
CRLMC No. 1949 of 2008
and
CRLMC No. 2004 of 2009
Decided on 19th May, 2010.

Advocates:
For Petitioners:M/s. Rabindranath Mohanty, P.K. Pratap, R.C. Ojha and A.K. Jena (in CRLMC No. 661/07)
M/s. Jaydip Pal and S.K. Pradhan (in CRLMC Nos.1949/08 and 2004/09)
For Opp. Party:Additional Government Advocate

Headnote:1. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Secs. 420 and 406 read with Sec. 34 IPC - Criminal proceeding under - Quashing of - Discussing the facts, contention and evidences held, no scope to assert that any of the petitioners was entrusted with any property, or any dominion over property as contemplated under Sec. 405 IPC - Materials on record do not support the main allegations of cheating under Sec. 415 IPC inasmuch as there is no material to indicate that the petitioners fraudulently or dishonestly induced the OSIC to deliver property - No allegation that the petitioners made any wilful misrepresentation - OSIC entered into a valid agreement and financial assistance was duly sanctioned - Grievance of the OSIC that the petitioner failed to discharge his contractual obligations - No allegation against any of the petitioners to have practised fraud or to have dishonestly induced the OSIC to provide financial assistance and thereby OSIC disbursed loan - OSIC having already instituted criminal proceeding under the N.I.Act in which no allegation of cheating or criminal breach of trust on the part of any of the petitioners was made - Held, to secure ends of justice the criminal proceeding quashed. (Paras - 21 and 22)

       2. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sec. 415 - To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false - It must also be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of entering into the disputed transaction.

       (Para - 21)

       3. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Secs. 482, 483 - Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, High Court can exercise inherent power under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. - A matter which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject matter of criminal offence, the latter being not a short cut of executing a decree which is non-existent - The superior Courts with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of Court - They have a duty in terms of Section 483 of the Cr.P.C. to supervise the functioning of the Trial Courts. (Para - 21)

JUDGMENT

B.K. PATEL, J. — Criminal Proceeding in G.R.Case No. 1728 of 1997 initiated against the petitioners for the alleged commis¬sion of offences under sections 420 and 406 read with 34 I.P.C. in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.(S), Cuttack has been assailed in all the three application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. In CRLMC No. 661 of 2007 prayer has been made to quash the order dated 12.2.2007 by which petitioner C.S. Nair’s prayer to discharge him under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Peti¬tioner M.K. Verma has made prayers to quash the order dated 7.10.2002 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences upon receipt of charge sheet against C.S. Nair in CRLMC No. 1949 of 2008 and to quash the order dated 1.11.2004 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences upon receipt of supplementary charge-sheet against him in CRLMC No. 2004 of 2009.

3. Petitioner M.K. Verma is the Managing Director of M/s. Vogue Garments Pvt. Limited whereas petitioner C.S. Nair is the proprietor of M/s. Harsha Fashion. G.R. Case No. 1728 of 1997 corresponding to Madhupatna P.S. Case Nos. 400 of 1997 was regis¬tered on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged by the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the OSIC’), a Govern¬ment of Orissa Undertaking against the petitioner M.K. Verma for alleged commission of offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Initially charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner C.S. Nair only under Sections 420 and 406 read with 34 I.P.C. keeping the inves¬tigation open under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, supplemen¬tary charge-sheet was submitted against petitioner M.K. Verma.

4. It is alleged that M/s. Vogue Garments Pvt. Ltd. procured two orders for export of different varieties of dresses to M/s Fashion Book Inc., New York, USA. On being approached by the petitioner M.K. Verma, the OSIC paid to M/s Vogue Garments Pvt. Ltd. and Harsha Fashion Rs.30,28,500/- for execution of the export orders. For the purpose an agreement was executed between the OSIC and the petitioner M.K. Verma and sanction order was issued by the OSIC. In terms of the agreement both the export orders were transferred in favour of the OSIC by M/s Fashion Boom Inc., New York, USA. M/s Harsha Fashion was paid for procurement of fabrics for manufacture of garments on the request of M/s Vogue Garments Pvt. Ltd. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that the letter issued by the OSIC to M/s. Harsha Fashion was returned undelivered and that the petitioner M.K. Verma left for USA on 22.9.1996 without any intimation to the OSIC.

It is further stated in the F.I.R. that the petitioner M.K. Verma has been assuring from the USA to repay the loan and that he sent a draft for US$1000/- which was credited to the account of the OSIC on 7.4.1997 as advance of an export order. On the basis of the above averments, it was alleged in the F.I.R.:

“It is learnt that Sri Verma in order to cheat the Corporation has deliberately induced the Corporation to deliver the advance amount in his favour and has mis-utilized and misap¬propriated a sum of Rs.30,28,500/-. Shri Verma as a merchant has misappropriated the entire amount by cheating the Corporation. The Corporation being a public body and dealing with public money has sustained heavy loss for such cheating and misappropriation. Since Mr. Verma and his other Directors of the unit are jointly responsible for such cheating and misappropriation, a case be registered and investigation may kindly be taken up.”

5. Investigation was conducted under Mangalabag Police Station till 15.1.1998 when the same was handed over to the C.I.D., Crime Branch, Orissa.

6. Initial charge-sheet dated 6.10.2002 reads:

“Brief facts of the case is that on 3.10.1997 complainant Sandeep Pattnaik, Manager, Exports of O.S.I.C. Ltd., Khapuria, P.S. Madhupatna, Cuttack submitted a written report at madhupatna P.S. alleging that Rs.30,28,500/- was paid to M/s.Vogue Garments Pvt. Ltd. BBSR and M/s Harsha Fashions, 56-A, V. Nagar, New Delhi-45 for execution of expor


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top