Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 87
2008(2) JLJ 62
A.P. Shrivastava, J.
LML Limited and others v. Kailash Narain Rai
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1260 of 2007 (Gwalior): against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, passed in Complaint Case No.269 of 2007;
Decided on 18.1.2008.
R. Santhanam with Pramod Pachori for petitioners;
M.C. Gupta with R.D. Agrawal for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- case registered under S.420, IPC -- question of fact involved to be revealed in enquiry -- petitioners having alternative remedy to contest the case in trial Court -- proceedings cannot be quashed.
The question of fact involved is as to what was in the agreement entered into between the respondent and the petitioners and whether due to non-performance of the agreement, it amounts to mischief committed by the petitioners which comes under the definition of section 420 of IPC and further, whether the Court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia) has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. [Para 17
Held: It would not be appropriate to interfere in the impugned orders because the petitioners have an alternative remedy available and they may contest the criminal proceedings in the trial Court. There is an alternative remedy available and it is not a case in which the interference by way of inherent jurisdiction is required. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, the petition of the petitioners stands dismissed. AIR 1975 SC 495 and 2001 CrLJ 3737 followed. [Para 22
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- 5.420 -- offence of cheating -- actual manner of misappropriation of property --need not be proved. (2006)2 SCC (Cri.) 460 followed. [Para 14
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.204 and 397(2) -- offence under S.420 IPC -- registration of case on complaint and issuance of warrant -- not an interim order -- accused has an efficacious remedy of revision. [Para 16
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- inherent powers -- cannot be exercised according to whims or caprice -- there should been abuse of process of Court.
Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed merely on the grounds that civil remedy is available. In the matter of exercise of High Court‘s inherent power, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceeding would be a total abuse of the process of Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, charge and trial and in the event, the High Court is desirous of putting a stop to the known procedure of law, the High Court must use a proper circumspection and as noticed above, very great care and caution has to be taken to quash the complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. AIR 1977 SC 2229 and AIR 2000 SC 1869 followed. [Paras 19 & 20
¼1½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 482& &ekeyk /kkjk 420] Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds v/khu jftLVªhÑr& &varxzZLr rF; dk ç‘u tk¡p esa çdV fd;k tkuk ‘ks"k& &vkosndx.k dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa ekeys dk çfrokn djus dk vkuqdfYid mipkj miyC/k& &dkZokgh vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrhA
varxZzLr rF; dk ç‘u ;g gS fd vukosnd rFkk vkosndx.k ds e/; fd, x, djkj esa D;k djkj ds vikyu ds dkj.k] og vkosndx.k }kjk dkfjr fjf‘V dh dksfV esa vkrk gS tks fd Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 420 dh ifjHkk"kk ds v/khu vkrk gS rFkk blds vfrfjDr] D;k U;k;ky; ¼eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] nfr;k½ dks ifjokn xzg.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk gSA ¼iSjk 17½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vk{ksfir vkns‘kksa esa gLr{ksi djuk leqfpr ugha gksxk D;ksafd vkosndx.k dks vkuqdfYid mipkj miyC/k gS rFkk og fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa nkafMd dk;Zokgh dk çfrokn dj ldrs gSaA vkuqdfYid mipkj miyC/k gS rFkk ;g ,slk ekeyk ugha gS ftlesa varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ds }kjk gLr{ksi visf{kr gSA vr% Åij dh foospukvksa dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq,] vkosndx.k dk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 495 rFkk 2001 fØ ,y ts 3737 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 22½
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860& &/kkjk 420& &Ny dk vijk/k& &laifÙk ds nqfoZfu;ksx dk okLrfod çdkj& &lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ughaA ¼2006½ 2 ,l lh lh ¼fØ-½ 460 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14½
¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 204 rFkk 397¼2½& &/kkjk 420] Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds v/khu vijk/k& &ifjokn ij ekeys dk jftLVªhdj.k rFkk okjaV tkjh fd;k tkuk& &varfje vkns‘k ugha gS& &vfHkqDr dks iqujh{k.k dk çHkkodkjh mipkj miyC/k gSA ¼iSjk 16½
¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 482& &varfuZfgr ‘kfDr;k¡& &lud vFkok LosPNkpkfjrk ds vuqlkj ç;qDr ugha dh tk ldrh& &Uk;ky; dh dk;Zokgh dk nq#i;ksx fd;k x;k gksuk pkfg,A
nkafMd dk;Zokgh ek= bu vk/kkjksa ij vfHk[kafMr ugha dh tk ldrh fd flfoy mipkj miyC/k gSA mPp U;k;ky; dh varfuZfgr ‘kfDr ds ç;ksx ds ekeys esa] ns[kh tkus okyh vis{kk ek= ;g gS fd D;k dk;Zokgh pkyw jgus ls U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh dk laiw.kZ nq#i;ksx gksxkA naM çfØ;k lafgrk esa vUos"k.k] vkjksi rFkk fopkj.k dh C;kSjsokj çfØ;k varfoZ"V gS rFkk] mPp U;k;ky; ds fy, fof/k dh Kkr çfØ;k dks lekIr djuk okaNuh; gksus dh n‘kk esa] mPp U;k;ky; }kjk leqfpr pkSdlh cjruk gh pkfg, rFkk tSlk fd Åij /;ku fn;k x;k gS] viuh varfuZfgr vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr djrs gq, ifjokn vfHk[kafMr djus esa vR;f/kd lrdZrk vkSj lko/kkuh dk ç;ksx djuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 2229 rFkk , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 1869 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 20½
1. By taking aid of inherent jurisdiction of this Court under sections 482 of CrPC, petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 9.1.2007, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia (M.P.) in Complaint Case No.269 of 2007 and consequent orders compelling the attendance of the petitioners, by bailable warrants of arrest.
2. The facts of the case are that, as per document Annexure A-7, respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners under section 420 of IPC. The learned trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 of CrPC on 22.12.2006 and posted for inquiry under section 202 of CrPC on 9.1.2007. On 9.1.2007, it is informed by the respondent that he does not want to give evidence and the Court after bearing the arguments and perusal of statement, registered a complaint against the petitioners under section 420 of IPC and issue bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each, to secure their appearance before the Court.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia, the petitioners have filed petition under sections 482 of CrPC on the following grounds:
(a) That, the petitioner No.1 LML Ltd., is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered. office at C-3, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur, and factory at C-6 to 10 Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur, carrying on inter alia, the business of manufacture and sale of two wheelers, (scooters and motorcycles) and parts thereof. There was illegal strike followed by lock-out because of labour problems in January, 2006 and the industrial disputes relating thereto, are the subject-matter of different proceedings before the competent Courts. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Company's business could not be carried on as hitherto before due to financial constraints, industrial sickness and the need for revival and rehabilitation in accordance with the Sick Industrial Companies' (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short "SICA") and reference to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short "BIFR") has, therefore, been made which has been registered vide the order of BIFR, Annexure No.1.
(b) That, under section 22(1) of the special legislation, i.e., SICA, the respondent is restrained from enforcing his claims under section 21(1) of SICA before the competent civil Court even where it may be otherwise necessary to invoke. Therefore, there is a statutory bar to the enforcement of the right of any creditor in any forum before any civil Court having jurisdiction or through other proceedings under appropriate applicable laws, the respondent has illegally and unjustifiably, without the authority of law filed the illegal, malicious, baseless and unwarranted complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Datia (M.P.) by impleading petitioners No.2, 3, 4 and 5 as accused persons and deliberately excluding petitioner No.1 with whom alone he had dealings as dealer of two-wheelers manufactured by it.
(c) That, the impugned order also challenged by the petitioners on the grounds that it would lead to grave injustice to them besides causing serious miscarriage of justice, hardship an harassment.
(d) That, the petitioners have had no transaction or acquaintance with the respondent at any time and nor collected any money from the respondent with any promise or assurance from their side personally nor have they individually received any money or transacted any business with the respondent within any design or cheating and the false allegations made by the complainant, are totally baseless and frivolous.
4. Arguments heard at length.
5. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complainant has filed baseless and frivolous complaint against the petitioners and the learned trial Court has committed error by not conducting proper inquiry as laid down in section 202 of CrPC. Further, the learned trial Court has ignored secti
