IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a criminal complaint lacking merit and based on a civil dispute, as well as a complaint rendered infructuous due to the liquidation of the complainant company, can be quashed as an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No.55 of 2014 pending on the file of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East filed by the second respondent herein. The second respondent is the complainant in the Criminal Complaint Case.

2. Heard Mr. Munish Kochhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. T. Rajendra, the learned counsel for the second respondent/ complainant.

3. Assailing the Criminal Complaint Case proceeding instituted by the second respondent against the petitioner before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, Mr. Munish Kochhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the said complaint are vague as it mentions about various agreements with two different companies i.e. M/s.Mekaster International Private Limited and M/s.Mekaster Engineering Private Limited stated to have been entered into by the second respondent/complainant company at different times and on different dates without giving any specific clarification and background regarding agreements entered with each company and their relevance and continuity with each other and that even the payments made by the second respondent company are mentioned in a vague manner and the relief is sought against the petitioner and assigned the position in only one company i.e. Chief Executive Officer of M/s.Mekaster Engineering Private Limited.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that even in the memo of parties of the complaint filed, the petitioner herein has been arrayed as the second accused as “Shri Mohit Khanna, CEO, Mekaster” and it has not even been mentioned as to the petitioner is the CEO of which entity named Mekaster and in fact, in the complaint, it is stated that the accused No.2 is serving as CEO of Marketing Mekaster Engineering Private Limtied.

5. The learned counsel next submitted that the relief sought in the complaint is to punish the accused persons and the company for the offences allegedly committed by them under Sections 417, 419, 420 and 34 IPC without even a whisper about any criminal offence being committed by the accused persons or any intention to do so on their part. The accused mentioned in the complaint, in any case, were acting on behalf of the company and not in their individual capacity.

6. The learned counsel then submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the complaint that he was in-charge of the company or was running the day-to-day business of the company. Moreover, all the agreements were entered into between the second respondent complainant company and with M/s.Mekaster International Private Limited and M/s.Nekaster Engineering Private Limited and all payments have been made by the complainant to the said two companies on various dates. However, none of the companies as stated above have been impleaded as accused in the complaint filed by the second respondent. The learned counsel also submitted that a civil case has been coloured as criminal case by the complainant. The petitioner herein is totally not related to the grievance of the complainant company and even if the averments made in the complaint are taken on their face value, no case is made out against the petitioner herein and therefore, the continuation of the criminal complaint is totally abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 : 2007 Legal Eagle (SC) 1131.

(ii) Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC 781 : 2015 Legal Eagle (SC) 235.

(iii) Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 : 2012 Legal Eagle (SC) 211.

7. Per contra, Mr. T. Rajendra, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that an order for supply of one road header