Bhagat Ram vs State of Haryana

S.D. Bajaj J.

On 23rd March, 1987 around 2.15 P M. Inspector Sat Pal of State Vigilance Bureau posted at, Karnal recorded First Information Report Exhibit P. 8 bearing No. 5 under Sections 406/467/468/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner Bhagat Ram in Police Station S.V.B. Karnal alleging that in order to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of paddy valued at Rs. 24,12,000/ allegedly purchased from various commission agents of Indri accused petitioner had set up a fictitious concern under the name and style of M/s Gupta. Rice Company and given out one Bhagwan Dutt son of Brahm Dutt, Sharma by caste, resident of House No 9 Shanker Bhagwan, Saddar Bazar, Karnal, as its sole owner and obtained fictitious licences from the Market Committee and Food and Supplies Department in connivance with alleged benami owner named Bhagwan Dutt aforesaid, Food and Supplies Inspector named Lachhman Dass and Harbhagwan Gupta, Secretary Market Committee, Indri.

In the course of investigation Bhagwan Dutt asserted that the concern of M/s. Gupta Rice Company belonged to him and the licences for it from the Market Committee as also the Food and Supplies Department were duly obtained. Commission Agents at Indri on whose complaint the machinery of Criminal law had been set in motion by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana in the State Vigilante Department also gave in writing vide Annexures P/3 to P/7 that the payments for the paddy allegedly purchased from them by Gupta Rice Company had been duly made to them. In spite of it the police persisted in pursuing the matter against the accused because Bhagwan Dutt Sharma according to them, could not start business under the other caste name of `Gupta'' Rice Company and one Gainda Mal owner of a shop allegedly on rent with Bhagwan Dutt Sharma had not admitted Bhagwan Dutt Sharma aforesaid to be his tenant. According to the police, therefore, accused petitioner Bhagat Ram had set up a fictitious concern of Gupta Rice Company benami in the alleged ownership of Bhagwan Dutt Sharma with the bad intention of avoiding making payment to various commission agents at Indri for the paddy allegedly purchased from them in the name of fictitious concern aforesaid.

Accused petitioner Bhagat Ram has filed Criminal Misc. No. 8659M of 1987 in this Court for quashing of the First Information Report No. 5 dated 23rd March, 1987 on the grounds that purchase of paddy by Gupta Rice Company could not create a trust in the accused for payment of its price by him, that the civil liability for this payment had duly been discharged by Gupta Rice Company itself and that on the basis of the allegations set out in the First Information Report no : criminal offence was made out at all.

Harbhagwan Gupta, the then secretary or the Market Committee, Indri, as also the Food and Supplies Inspector Lachhman Dass have filed their individual criminal Misc. No. 7796M of 1988 for the same relief on the grounds that the charges levelled against them in the First Information Report aforesaid and groundless.

I have heard Shri K. S. Thapar, Senior Advocate, with Sevshri C.B. Goel, and H.N. Mehtani, Advocates, for the petitioner, Shri Kulbir Singh. Advocate, for the respondent and have carefully scrutinized the material on record which was adverted to by them in the course of arguments.

Learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully argued that even in the First Information Report, the petitioner had been given out by the State Vigilance Inspector Sat Pat as very strong in politics and this according to the learned counsel was the basic reason for criminal prosecution by the State of Vigilance Department in a civil wrong (if at all) of the nonpayment of a part, of the price of paddy purchased by Gupta Rice Company from the commission agents at Indri.

To substantiate and develop his arguments further learned counsel referred to the observations made in Hari Ram v. The State of Haryana, Volume LXXVIII1976 Punjab Law Reporter 1. to assert that the petitioner was son of Hari Ram coaccused with Shiri Bhajan Lal, Central Minister for Environment in a case of conspiracy to murder the then Chief Minister of Haryana and thus a victim of political aggression which had been let lose against him through the State Vigilance Bureau at Karnal. There is thus obviously an abuse of the process of the Court indulged in by the State Vigilance Bureau through registration of a criminal case against the petitioner in respect of a civil wrong set out in the First Information Report regarding nonpayment of price of paddy to the commission agents of Indri. The words used by the author of the First Information Report are, "for eating away the money of the commission agents by fraud". The fraud attributed to the petitioner is also wholly without basis because Bhagwan Dutt Sharma stands by his title to and ownership of Gupta Rice Company. The commission agents at Indri all assert through Annexures P. 3 to P 7 that they have been duty paid the price of paddy purchased from them by Gupta Rice Company and the setting up of a business concern under and assumed name, different from `Sharma'' caste of Bhagwan Dutt is permitted by law.

Even otherwise also in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another etc., v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others etc., 1988(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 565 : A.I.R. 1988 Supreme Court 709 Supreme Court has held that breach of trust like the present one attributed to the accused petitioner constitutes only a civil wrong and, therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on its, basis have to be quashed. The relevant observations read

"Mr. Jethmalani has submitted, as we have already noted that a case of breach of trust is both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. There would be certain situations where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to a criminal offence. We are of the view that this case is one of that type where, if at all, the fact may constitute a civil wrong and the ingredients of the criminal offence are wanting. Several decisions were cited before us in support of the respective stands taken by counsel for the patties. It is unnecessary to refer to them. In course of hearing of the appeals. Dr. Singhvi made it clear that Madhavi does not claim any interest in the tenancy. In the setting of the matter we are inclined to hold that the criminal case should not be continued".

Learned counsel for the respondent, however, referred to the observations made in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, 1985(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 539 : 1985(1) Chandigarh, Law Reporter 666 and asserted that civil and criminal remedies are not mutually exclusive and can run side by side and that the two types of action are quite different, in content, scope and import. It was in fact this aspect of the matter which was sorted out by the Supreme Court in their observations referred to and reproduced above. There is thus no merits in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent, more so when accusedpetitioner does not claim a any title to and interest in M/s Gupta Rice Company.

In result Criminal Misc. No. 8659 of 1987 and 7796M of 1988 are both allowed and First Information Report No. 5 dated 23rd March, 1987 registered against all the three accusedpetitioner named therein, in Police Station SVB, Karnal, is quashed.

Revision allowed.