Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.
Shailabh Mendiratta – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Anr.. – Respondent
CRM-M-52490-2019
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Rubal Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant, Ms. Aditi Girdhar, Aag, Haryana, Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The literal meaning of a message and the absence of supporting material for a prima facie case under relevant IPC sections are crucial in determining the outcome of a case.
Headnote:
FIR Quashed - Dispute over Company Shareholding - IPC 386, 506 - Summary: The court quashed the FIR and subsequent proceedings as the message sent by the petitioner, though seemingly threatening, was part of the negotiation process to settle a dispute over company shareholding. The court emphasized the literal meaning of the message and the absence of supporting material for a prima facie case under the relevant IPC sections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings related to a message sent to the complainant in the context of a dispute over company shareholding. The message was seemingly threatening but was part of the negotiation process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the message, though seemingly threatening, was part of the negotiation process to settle a dispute over company shareholding and did not constitute a prima facie case under the relevant IPC sections.
Issues: Dispute over company shareholding, interpretation of threatening message, applicability of IPC sections 386 and 506.
Ratio Decidendi: The literal meaning of the message and the absence of supporting material for a prima facie case under the relevant IPC sections led the court to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings was allowed, and the FIR was quashed.
ORDER
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - The petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 134 dated 07.03.2019, under Sections 386 & 506 IPC, registered at Faridabad Central, Faridabad (Annexure P-3), Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated 03.06.2019 (Annexure P-5) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is 26 years of age, graduated from the Maharashtra Institute of Technology (MIT Pune) in Computer Science and has worked with Google. The grandfather of the petitioner namely Amir Chand Mehndiratta and the father of the complainant namely Mehar Singh had a shared holding to the extent of half share each in M/s Friends Auto (India) Private Limited. The company has a turnover of Rs.250 crores and is in manufacturing of automotive parts at Faridabad. After the death of the grandfather of the petitioner, the father of the petitioner and his uncles became the owners being legal heirs of Amir Chand Mehndiratta to the extent of 38.40% of the total share holding of the company. The company was, thus, being run by the members of the petitioner's family and the family of respondent No.2.
3. The son of respondent No.2 had been inducted as a Director in the year 2017 without informing the Board of Directors or taking its consent which led to a dispute. The petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction at District Court Faridabad but the same was dismissed on 14.06.2019 with a direction to approach appropriate authorities as per law. Thereafter, they had filed a company petition before the Company Law Tribunal and the NCLT Delhi Bench by the order dated 08.11.2019, had directed the parties to maintain status quo (Annexure P-6). The family members of the petitioner and complainant were trying to settle the dispute and in furtherance thereto the petitioner had sent a message on Whatsapp to respondent No.2 on 07.03.2019. The message is reproduced herein under:-
"62/B-II Mohan corporate indl estate + 50 crs for me and my dad...
Boss to Boss
Straight shooter."
4. Respondent No.2 then filed a complaint on 07.03.2019 to the Commissioner and on orders of Commissioner of Police, Faridabad an FIR was registered the same day. The petitioner was arrested on 07.03.2019 itself and was later granted regular bail by the trial Court.
Learned counsel submits that the message was only in furtherance to the talks of settlement. The property and the money mentioned in the message is commensurate with the share of the petitioner's father in the company.
5. The literal meaning of the term "straight shooter" is an "honest and straight forward person". The term "Boss to Boss" means to sit face to face to solve a dispute. He has referred to the definition of "straight shooter" in various dictionaries and an American journal where the term has been used in the context of a straight forward person.
6. Besides the message, there is no other allegation that the petitioner had threatened respondent No.2 to face consequences in any manner whatsoever. The essential ingredients of offences under Sections 386 and 506 IPC are not made out and, therefore, the FIR and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. He has relied upon the judgments of the High Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 795, Shatrughan Singh Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.,WPCR No.133 of 2017, decided on 07.09.2021, Shaikh Mujib Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2017(2) AIR, Bom.R (Cri) 361, Soma Ram and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2006 (12) RCR (Criminal) 206 and State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Ch. BhajanLal and ors., 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that respondent No.2 is 58 years old and he had received the message at 05:00 a.m. on 07.03.2019 from an unknown number. He had received threats in the past as well. Respondent No.2 had earlier been attacked by unknown persons in the year 2008. He had lodged
