Reliance Industries Ltd. vs Shyam Sundar Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Ori) 655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. K. SAHOO, J.
CRLMC No. 359 Of 2012
(Date of Judgment : 30.07.2018)
An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with I.C.C. Case No. 69 of 2009 pending on the file of S.D.J.M., Athagarh.
Reliance Industries Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Sundar Sharma … Opp. party

Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Mukherji
Mr. Partha Mukherji
For Opp. Party : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra

Headnote:1. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - Sec. 482 - Cognizance of offences u/s. 420, 384, 427, 471, 467 read with Sec. 34 of the IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has provisions at each stage to correct errors, failures of justice and abuse of process under the supervision and superintendence of the High Court - High Court has inherent powers under the Section to correct errors of the Court below and pass such orders as may be necessary to do justice to the parties and/or to prevent the abuse of process of Court - No bar for the High Court in entertaining an application under the Section when a prayer is made to quash the criminal proceeding or an order taking cognizance of offence and issueance of process is under challenge - In the present case held, nothing on record to show that representation which was made by the Company to the complainant to supply petroleum products in the retail outlet at ‘K’ was false to the knowledge of the Company and was made in order to deceive the complainant - Nothing on record to show that the intention of the Company was dishonest at the very time when it made a promise and entered into a transaction with the complainant to part with his money -Discontinuance of supply of petroleum products to the retail outlet of the complainant under force majeure situation may be a mere breach of contract but the conduct of the petitioner in supplying the petroleum products for two years to the retail outlet of the complainant negatives any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the Company at the beginning of the transaction -Subsequent conduct of the Company relating to discontinuance of supply of petroleum products cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction - Ingredients of offence u/s. 420, 471, 467 and 384 of IPC are not attracted - To prevent abuse of the process and to secure the ends of justice, it becomes imperative to quash the impugned order invoking the inherent power under the Section.
Thus the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 can be exercised even when there is a bar under Section 397 or some other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The most common case where inherent jurisdiction is generally exercised is where criminal proceedings are required to be quashed because they are initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction. It must be remembered that the inherent power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code or any other enactment for redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party. (Paras - 4 to 8)
2. PENAL CODE, 1860 - Sec. 471 - Essential ingredients of the Section are (i) fraudulent or dishonest use of a forged document as genuine, (ii) knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of person using the document that it is a forged one - There must be material to show that a particular document is a forged one. (Para - 7)

JUDGMENT

S. K. SAHOO, J. - The petitioner Reliance Industries Limited (hereafter ‘R.I.L.’) represented through its State Head Sri Viren K Joshi has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking inherent powers of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 01.11.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh in I.C.C. Case No.69 of 2009 in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 384, 427, 471, 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against the R.I.L.

2. The opposite party-complainant Shyam Sundar Sharma filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh alleging therein that he was fraudulently persuaded by Sangramjeet Mohanty and Sarbeswar Mohanty of the R.I.L. to establish a R.I.L. Petrol Pump at Khuntuni. They assured a guaranteed profit margin as per their commission structure. The complainant was persuaded to purchase a land measuring Ac.1.70 dec. at a huge cost through the land brokers engaged by the R.I.L. All steps were taken before the Collector and Executive Engineer (N.H.) by the R.I.L. and its representatives for obtaining ‘No Objection Certificate’ for establishment of a retail outlet at Khuntuni under the name and style of ‘M/s. Shyam Filling Station’. The R.I.L. fraudulently induced the complainant to execute a lease deed and a dealership agreement and being deceived, the complainant and the R.I.L. entered into dealership agreement as well as lease deed on 22.08.2005. It is the further case of the complainant that he signed and executed both the deeds and delivered the same to the R.I.L. and its representatives. The R.I.L. induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) as signing fee and Rs.23.5 lakhs as security deposit. It is stated that the R.I.L. and its authorized representatives extorted the complainant for causing loss of property to the tune of Rs.26.5 lakhs. As per the terms of dealership agreement, the R.I.L. was supposed to continue delivering petrol, diesel and allied products to the filling station of the complainant. The R.I.L. fraudulently convinced the complainant that finances to run the outlet would be arranged by them and the filling station shall run at the rate fixed by the Government earning profit for the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that R.I.L. and its officers and agents acted in connivance with the authorities of the State Bank of India and especially the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Athagarh Branch in providing finance to the tune of Rs.1.19 crores in favour of the complainant as a term loan and cash credit enabling him to complete the construction of the filling station as per the approved layout and design of R.I.L. and for operation of the filling station. On 29.10.2005 the complainant was compelled to sign a tripartite agreement with R.I.L. and State Bank of India on deceitful and fraudulent terms. The R.I.L. and State Bank of India and their representatives at all relevant time fraudulently made the complainant believe that they would act bona fide as per the terms of the documents and shall cooperate for appropriate and proper functioning and operation of the filling station. The tripartite agreement ex facie shows that the R.I.L. was interested in setting up and running the retail outlet and the R.I.L. shall not terminate the dealership and shall not stop supplying the products to the complainant and that the R.I.L. had undertaken to act as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. According to the complainant, the tripartite agreement was extorted by fraudulent representations.

It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant operated the outlet for a period of two years as per the instructions and directions of the R.I.L. issued from time to time. The complainant had invested more than Rs.60 lakhs of his own funds for promotion and continuance of the outlet. During that period, there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document