IMPORTANT POINT
Where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482-Grant of a works contract to Respondent 2, by "IFFCO", for the purpose of conducting repairs in their plant - Said work order was subsequently cancelled by IFFCO-Respondent.2 filed complaint case under Sections 403 and 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust against appellants "IFFCO" - Magistrate after taking cognizance, issued summons to appellants and thereafter bailable warrants were issued against appellants -Application thereagainst filed by appellants for quashing said criminal proceedings-Dismissed-Appeals-Held proceedings must be labeled as nothing more than an abuse of process of the court, particularly in view of the fact that, with respect to enact the same subject matter, various complaint cases had already been filed by respondent.2 and his brother, which were all dismissed on merits, after the examination of witnesses- In such a fact-situation, Complaint Case filed on 31.5.2001 was not maintainable- Hence Magistrate concerned committed a grave error by entertaining the said case, and wrongly took cognizance and issued summons to appellants- Impugned judgment set aside and proceedings in Complaint Case held liable to be quashed-Appeals allowed (Paras 33, 34)
       Facts of the Case :
        A works contract was granted to Respondent 2, by "IFFCO", herein in the instant case for the purpose of conducting repairs in their plant . Said work order was subsequently cancelled by IFFCO.Respondent.2 filed complaint case under Sections 403 and 406 IPC for criminal breach of trust against appellants "IFFCO" . Magistrate after taking cognizance, issued summons to appellants and thereafter bailable warrants were issued against appellants .Application thereagainst u/s 482 Crpc. filed by appellants for quashing said criminal proceedings was Dismissed by High Court.
        B .Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Relying upon decision in Kishan Singh (dead) thr. Lrs. v. Gurpal Singh & Ors. Held that where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Held instantly proceedings must be labeled as nothing more than an abuse of process of the court, particularly in view of the fact that, with respect to enact the same subject matter, various complaint cases had already been filed by respondent.2 and his brother, which were all dismissed on merits, after the examination of witnesses. In such a fact-situation, Complaint Case filed on 31.5.2001 was not maintainable. Hence Magistrate concerned committed a grave error by entertaining the said case, and wrongly took cognizance and issued summons to appellants. Impugned judgment was set aside and proceedings in Complaint Case was held liable to be quashed. Appeals allowed
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Both these appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.3.2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 41827 of 2011, by which the High Court has rejected the petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No.628 of 2011 (Sudha Kant Pandey v. K.L. Singh & Anr.) under Sections 403 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are:

A. M/s. Manish Engineering Enterprises of which respondent No.2, Sudha Kant Pandey, claims to be the proprietor, was given a work order by M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “IFFCO”), Phulpur unit, on 1.2.1996 for the purpose of conducting repairs in their plant worth an estimated value of Rs.13,88,750/-. The said work order was subsequently cancelled by IFFCO on 7.2.1996.

B. Aggrieved, M/s. Manish Engineering Enterprises made a representation dated 21.3.2001, to IFFCO requesting it to make payments for the work allegedly done by it. As there was no response from the management of IFFCO, the said concern filed Writ Petition No. 19922 of 2001 before the High Court of Allahabad, seeking a direction by it to IFFCO for the payment of an amount of Rs.22,81,530.22 for alleged work done by it.

C. The High Court disposed of the said Writ Petition vide order dated 25.5.2001, directing IFFCO to dispose of the representation dated 21.3.2001, submitted by the said concern within a period of 6 weeks. In pursuance of the order of the High Court dated 25.5.2001, the said representation dated 21.3.2001, was considered by the Managing Director of IFFCO and was rejected by way of a speaking order dated 15.10.2001, and the same was communicated to the said concern vide letter dated 29.10.2001.

D. M/s. Manish Engineering Enterprises filed Writ Petition No. 7231 of 2002 before the High Court of Allahabad for the recovery of the said amount, which stood disposed of vide order dated 20.2.2002, with a direction to pursue the remedy available under the arbitration clause contained in the agreement executed in pursuance of the aforementioned work order.

E. M/s. Manish Engineering Enterprises filed Arbitration Application No. 24 of 2002 before the High Court of Allahabad under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1996’) on 24.5.2002, praying for the appointment of an arbitrator, in view of the fact that the application made by the said concern for the purpose of appointing an arbitrator, had been rejected by IFFCO as being time barred. The High Court therefore, vide judgment and order dated 17.10.2003, appointed an arbitrator. However, the said arbitrator expressed his inability to work. Thus, vide order dated 13.2.2004, another arbitrator was appointed.

F. M/s. Manish Engineering Enterprises filed a Claim Petition on various counts, including one for an amount of Rs.9,27,182/- towards the alleged removal of items from their godown within the IFFCO premises.

The learned arbitrator so appointed, framed a large number of issues and rejected in particular, the claim of alleged removal of items from the godown of M/s. Manish Enterprises, located within the IFFCO premises (being issue No.13), though he accepted some other claims vide award dated 11.3.2007.

IFFCO filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 for the purpose of setting aside the award dated 11.3.2007, before the District Court, Allahabad and the matter is sub-judice.

G. Mr. Sabha Kant Pandey, the brother of respondent no.2/complainant, filed Complaint Case No. 4948 of 2009 against the officers of IFFCO on 23.11.2009 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 and 120-B IPC before the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. Therein, some witnesses including the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(SC) 43

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADr. B.S. CHAUHAN, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.Udai Shankar Awasthi - AppellantVersusState of U.P. & Anr. - RespondentsCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 of 2013Decided On : 09-01-2013Text1

Cases Referred (32)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
Udai Shankar Awasthi - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 of 2013
Decided On : 09-01-2013
Text1