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

2005 Supreme(MP) 123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
S.L. Jain, J.
Cadbury Schweppes Beverage India Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
State of M.P.
Misc. Cri. Case No. 5206 of 2003
Decided On: 25.01.2005

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Dr. Rajendra Singh, Senior Advocate and Anoop Nair
For Respondents/Defendant:J.K. Jain, Government Advocate for State and Manish Datt for Respondent No. 2

Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 420 and 415 -- guilty intention is an essential ingredient of offence of cheating -- mens real on the part of accused must be established before conviction. AIR 1956 SC 575 followed. [Para 8

       (2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 420 -- Offence of cheating -- parting with goods an assurance of accused -- when accused had intention to pay, no Offence of cheating committed if price not paid -- it may still be a civil case -- it is the initial intention which makes the case criminal. AIR 1954 SC 724 followed. [Para 9

       (3) Penal Code 1860 -- Ss. 420 and 415 -- offence of cheating -- complaint should show dishonest intention at the time complainant parted with goods or money-otherwise it would amount to breach of contract. AIR 1974 SC 301 and (2000) 3 SCC 693 followed.[Para 10

       (4) Criminal P.C. 1973 -- Ss. 482, 200 and 154 -- criminal complaint or FIR for offence of cheating under S. 420, IPC -- not disclosing in gradient of offence even prima facie -- complaint and FIR may be quashed at initial stage -- police cannot investigate if no cognizable offence is disclosed in FIR. AIR 1982 SC 949 and AIR 1992 SC 604 followed. [Para 14

        ¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420 rFkk 415 && nqf"kr vk‘k; Ny ds vijk/k dk vfuok;Z la?kVd gS && nks"kflf) ls iwoZ] vfHk;qDr dh vijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr LFkkfir gksuk vko‘;d gSA , vkb vkj 1956 ,l lh 575 vuqlfjrA

       ¼iSjk 8½

       ¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420 && Ny dk vijk/k&& vfHk;qDr ds vk‘oklu ij eky ns fn;k tkuk && tc vfHk;qDr dk vk‘k; lank; dk Fkk] dher lanRr ugha fd, tkus ij Ny dk vijk/k dkfjr ugha gksrk && og rc Hkh flfoy ekeyk gksxk && izkjafHkd vk‘k; ls ekeyk nkafMd curk gSA , vkb vkj 1954 ,llh 724 vuqlfjrA

       ¼iSjk 9½

       ¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420 rFkk 415 && Ny dk vijk/k && ifjokn esa ifjoknh ds eky ;k /ku ls foyx gksrs le; csbekuh dk vk‘k; nf‘kZr gksuk pkfg, && vU;Fkk og lafonk Hkax dh dksfV dk gksxkA , vkb vkj 1974,l lh 301 rFkk ¼2000½ 3 ,l lh lh 693 vuqlfjrA

       ¼iSjk 10½

       ¼4½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482] 200 rFkk 154 && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 420 ds v/khu Ny ds vijk/k ds fy, nkafMd ifjokn ;k izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ && vijk/k dk la?kVd izFken`"V~;k Hkh izdV ugha && ifjokn vkSj izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ vkjafHkd izdze ij vfHk[kafMr fd, tk ldrs gSa && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ esa laKs; vijk/k izdV ugha gksrk rc iqfyl vUos"k.k ugha dj ldrhA , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 949 rFkk , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 604 vuqlfjrA

       ¼iSjk 14½

ORDER

S.L. Jain, J.

FF

1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as the 'FIR') registered as Crime No. 18/01 dated 8-1-2001 in police station Govindpura, Distt. Bhopal for the offences punishable under section 420 read with sections 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code')

2. Facts leading to filing of this petition succinctly narrated are thus :

i. The petitioner No. 1 was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at 502, Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. From 24-11-1999, the Company is known as Georges Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. and has its registered office at 13, Silk House, 630, Shankar Seth Road, Mumbai. The company having sold its brands to a subsidiary of Coca Cola Company is currently not engaged in any business. At the time of the alleged commission of offences the Company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of syrups which were used in the manufacture of certain non-alcoholic beverages sold in India under various brand names.

ii. At the time of alleged commission of the offence, the second to fifth petitioners were office bearers in the first petitioner's Company and were the Chairman, Finance Director, Managing Director and General Manager Finance respectively.

iii. Sometime in the month of November, 2000, a Criminal Complaint came to be filed by one Sanjiva Bottling Company Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Rajiv Mehta in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal alleging the commission of offences under sections 420/34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners.

iv. It was alleged in the complaint that the first petitioner had failed to make a payment of Rs. 2,43,794.00 (Two lacs forty three thousand and seven hundred ninety four only) to one M/s Universal Glass Ltd, which had supplied bottles to Sanjiva Bottling for the said amount. And thus cheated Sanjiva Bottling by causing to it wrongful loss.

v. Earlier, one other complaint was filed by Sanjiva Bottling against the present petitioners and some other persons on 24-7-2C00 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhopal with regard to an agreement entered into between the parties. The offences alleged were those under section 420, 120-B and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code.

vi. On 31-10-2000, police submitted a report in this case stating that the case was of civil nature and that no offence had been committed by the accused persons.

vii. The learned Magistrate, however, came to the conclusion that the report filed by the police was not in the correct format as prescribed by the rules and directed the police to file it in the correct format vide order dated 16-11-2000.

viii. Pursuant to the order of the Magistrate, the police not only registered complaint filed on 24-7-2000 as Crime No. 5/2001 but on its own registered the present complaint filed on 23-11-2000 as Crime No. 18/2001 and once again started the investigation.

ix. It is the case of the applicant that the complaint which was registered as Crime No. 18/2001 fails to disclose the commission of any offence. The FIR is bald and does not assign any individual or overt act on any of the accused persons. From the reading of the FIR no criminal act can be made out. The only allegations in the complaint are that the accused persons wanted to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and the letters of the complainant are not properly replied. In the complaint the complainant only stated that the accused persons want to cause wrongful loss. It fails to mention that wrongful loss has in fact been caused. x. It is averred in the petition that the entire money which was debit




































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