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

2003 Supreme(MP) 165

2003(1) JLJ 325
(SUPREME COURT)
S. Rajendra Babu, Brijesh Kumar and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Ajay Mitra
Versus
State of M.P. and others
Cr. Appeal Nos. 130-32 of 2003, against the orders of the M.P. High Court in Misc. Cr. Case No. 202 of 2002;
Decided on : 28.1.2003.

Advocates appeared:
F.S. Nariman with D.C. Mathur for appellants;
Vivek Tankha, Advocate General, M.P. and Ms. Kamakshi Mehlwal for respondents; Sushil Kumar for complainant.

Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 420 and 415 -- cheating -- mens rea on the part of accused must be established before he can be convicted of cheating.

       Sanjiva Bottlini Company, through its director Rajiv Mehta, filed a criminal complaint against 11 accused including the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal on July 24, 2000 for their prosecution under section 420 read with section 511, IPC. [Para 4

       On January 11, 2001, the police submitted a report that on the basis of the complaint, case Crime No.5 of 2001, case Crime No. 13 of 2001 and case Crime No. 18 of 2001 have been registered under sections 20, 120B and 34, IPC. On the same date, the learned Magistrate passed an order that the police had registered the offence and investigation is being carried on and, therefore, the complainant should make available Hindi translation of the documents and fixed January 30, 2001 as the next date. Thereafter, the appellants filed three criminal miscellaneous petitions under section 482, CrPC. before the High Court for quashing of the FIR and the proceedings of the case before the learned Magistrate. After hearing the parties, the High Court held that the investigation had not yet commenced in connection with the FIRs which had been registered at the police station and, therefore, the petitions were premature and, accordingly, all the three petitions were rejected. [Para 7]

       Held: A guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In other words, ‘mens rea‘ on the part of the accused must be established before he can be convicted of an offence of cheating. AIR 1956 SC 575 and AIR 1954 SC 724 relied on. [Para 16]

       Unless the complaint showed that the accused had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the complainant parted with the money, it would not amount to an offence under section 420, IPC and it may only amount to breach of contract. AIR 1974 SC 301 relied on.

       In order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered. (2000) 3 SCC 693 relied on. [Para 17]

       (2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 482, 154 and 200 -- FIR or complaint not disclosing an offence -- may be quashed under inherent powers to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the Court.

       The question which arises is that where the complaint or the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, whether the same can be quashed at the initial stage ? ... The first information report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into a report (FIR) which does not disclose the commission of a cognizahle offence and the Code does not impose upon them the duty of inqJ1ry in such cases. It was further held that an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR. AIR 1982 SC 949 and AIR 1992 SC 604 relied on. (1999) 8 SCC 686 distinguished. [Para 19 & 20]

       ¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420 rFkk 415 && Ny && vfHk;qDr dks Ny ds fy, fl)nks"k Bgjkus ls iwoZ mldh vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr LFkkfir dh tkuk pkfg,A

       latho ckVfyax daiuh }kjk] mlds funs‘kd jktho esgrk ds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZx.k lfgr 11 vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:) U;kf;d eftLVªsV izFke Js.kh] Hkksiky ds U;k;ky; esa naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 511 ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 420 ds v/khu vfHk;kstu ds fy, 24 tqykbZ 2000 dks nkafMd ifjokn Qkby fd;k x;k FkkA ¿ iSjk 4

       11 tuojh 2001 dks iqfyl }kjk fjiksVZ is‘k dh xbZ fd ifjokn ds vk/kkj ij naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 20] 120[k rFkk 34 ds v/khu vijk/k ekeyk Ø-5 lu~ 2001] vijk/k ekeyk Ø- 13 lu~ 2002 rFkk vijk/k ekeyk Ø- 18 lu~ 2001 jftLVj fd, x, gSaA mlh fnukad dks fo}ku eftLVªsV us vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k fd iqfyl us vijk/k jftLVj dj fy;k gS rFkk vUos"k.k py jgk gS] vr%] ifjoknh }kjk nLrkostksa ds fganh vuqokn miyC/k djk, tk,¡] rFkk mUgksaus 30 tuojh 2001 dh vxyh rkjh[k fu;r dhA rRi‘pkr~] vihykFkhZx.k us izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vkSj fo}ku eftLVªsV ds le{k ekeys dh dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr djus ds fy, mPp U;k;ky; dds le{k naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu rhu nkafMd izdh.kZ ;kfpdk,¡ Qkby dhaA i{kdkjksa dh lquokbZ ds i‘pkr~ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd iqfyl Fkkus esa jftLVj dh xbZ izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVksZa ds laca/k esa vc rd vUos"k.k vkjaHk ugha gqvk Fkk blfy, ;kfpdk,¡ le;iwoZ Fkha] rnuqlkj] rhuksa ;kfpdk,¡ ukeatwj gks xbZaA ¿ iSjk 7

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % nks"kh vk‘k;] Ny ds vijk/k dk vfuok;Z la?kVd gSA vU; ‘‘kCnksa esa] vfHk;qDr dks Ny ds vijk/k ds fy, fl)nks"k Bgjk;k tk lds] mlls iwoZ mldh ^vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr* LFkkfir dh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 575 rFkk , vkb vkj 1954 ,l lh 724 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 16

       tc rd ifjokn esa nf‘kZr ugha gks fd ftl le; ifjoknh us /ku fn;k ml le; vfHk;qDr dk vk‘k; csbZekuh ;k diViw.kZ Fkk] rc rd og naM lafgrk] dh /kkjk 420 ds v/khu vijk/k dh dksfV esa ugha vk,xk rFkk og dsoy lafonk&Hkax dh dksfV esa vk,xkA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 301 voyafcrA

       Ny dk vijk/k xfBr djus ds fy, izoafpr djus dk vk‘k; ml le; vfLrRo esa gksuk pkfg, tc mRizsj.kk nh xbZA ¼2000½3 ,l lh lh 693 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 17

       ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482] 154 rFkk 200 && izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ vFkok ifjokn esa fdlh vijk/k dk izdVhdj.k ugha && U;k; ds mn~ns‘; dh iwfrZ ds fy, vFkok U;k;ky; ds nq:i;ksx dk fuokj.k djus ds fy,, varfuZfgr ‘kDR;k/khu vfHk[kafMr fd;k tk ldrk gSA

       mn~Hkwr iz‘u ;g gS fd tgk¡ ifjokn vFkok izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa laKs; vijk/k fd, tkus dk izdVhdj.k ugha gks] D;k mls vkjafHkd izØe ij vfHk[kafMr fd;k tk ldrk gS\ ---- ftl izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ esa ;g vfHkdFku ;k izdVhdj.k ugha gks fd nkafMd mica/k dh vfuok;Z vis{kk,¡ izFken`"V~;k iw.kZ gks xbZ gSa] mlls fof/kiw.kZ vUos"k.k dk vk/kkj vFkok vkjafHkd fcanq xfBr ugha gksrkA fuf‘pr :i ls] ,slh fjiksVZ ¼izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ½ ds vk/kkj ij vUos"k.k djuk iqfyl ds dk;Z{ks= esa ugha gS ftlesa laKs; vijk/k fd, tkus dk izdVhdj.k ugha gS rFkk lafgrk esa iqfyl ij ,sls ekeyksa esa tk¡p dk drZO; vf/kjksfir ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g vkSj vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k fd ;fn izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ }kjk fdlh laKs; vijk/k dk izdVhdj.k ugha gks rc vUos"k.k vfHk[kafMr fd;k tk ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh lh 949 rFkk , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 604 voyafcrA ¼1999½ 8 ,l lh lh 686 izHksfnrA ¿ iSjk 19 ,oa 20

ORDER

Mathur, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated January 16, 2002 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by which three petitions filed by the appellants under section 482, CrPC were dismissed.

3. M/s. Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Private Ltd. entered into three identical bottling agreements with the complainant, Sanjiva Bottling Company Private Limited on March 1, 1996 pursuant to a Master Trademark Licence entered into by associate companies of Cadbury Schweppes Plc., United Kingdom and Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Private Limited. In terms of these three agreements, M/s. Sanjiva Bottling Company was authorised to manufacture and sell certain specified beverages under specified trademarks owned by Cadbury Schweppes Plc., U.K. or its associate companies. The agreements contained identical clauses with regard to their respective terms and conditions and provided that they shall continue for an initial term of five years and for further successive period of five years, unless terminated by either party by giving to the other not less than 12 calendar months' notice in writing to terminate the agreement. On July 29, 1999, Atlantic Industries (a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of The Coca Cola Export Corporation, USA) purchased about 3500 trademarks in 155 countries from Cadbury Schweppes Plc., upon which the bottling agreements between Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. and Sanjiva Bottling Company were duly assigned to Atlantic Industries and an information regarding the same was given to Sanjiva Bottling Company in writing. On February 14, 2000, Atlantic Industries gave notice in writting to the ,complainant, Sanjiva Bottling Company that the bottling agreements shall not be renewed after their expiry on February 28, 2001.

4. Sanjiva Bottling Company, through its director Rajiv Mehta; filed a criminal complaint against 11 accused including the appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal on July 24, 2000 for their prosecution under section 420 read with section 511, IPC. The accused No. 1 arraigned in the complaint is Cadbury Scheweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) and accused No.2 to 5 are Chairman, Managing Director and Finance Director etc. of the said Company. Besides them, Coca Cola India (A-6), Alex Von Behr, President and Chief Executive Officer (A-7). Nitin Dalvi, Vice-President, Strategic Business, Planning and Information Services (A-8) and Samip Shah, Vice-President, Business Development of Coca Cola India (A-8), Ajay Mitra, Regional Operational Director, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (A-10) and Steve M. Whaley, Vice-President and General Tax Counsel, Atlantic Industries (A-11) have been arrayed as accused No. 6 to 11. The case set up in the complaint is that the Complainant is engaged in the business of bottling soft drinks since 1983 at Bhopal. The complainant was approached by A-1 in 1995 to discontinue its competing brand 'Sprint' and a memorandum of understanding was signed on October 9, 1995. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the complainant and A-Ion March 1, 1996 by which the complainant became one of the bottlers of A-1, made investments in the bottling plant and also promoted the sales of A-1 in its area. By a letter dated July 29, 1999, A-1 informed the complainant that the brands Schweppes, Crush and Canada Dry and associated brands in India would be acquired by a member of the Coca Cola group of companies. A-1 had 19 bottlers in the year 1997 but Coca Cola India (A-6) had reduced them to 7 and is installing its own bottling plants in different places. The case of the complainant further is that by the letter dated February 14, 2000, A-6 informed the complainant that they would not renew the agreements on their expiry on February 28, 2001. In paras 47 and 48 of the complaint, it is alleged that A-6 is adopting all sorts of unfair trade practices and that it has made wrong


















































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