Niranjan Dass vs Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.and anr..

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Niranjan Dass Petitioner worked as Inspector in the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Punsup) as Lehragaga, Sangrur. On April 1, 1986 he was transferred from Circle Office, Sangrar to Punsup Centre, Lehragaga where be joined on April 15, 1985 before noon. He worked as Incharge at Punsup Centre, Lehra upto June 23, 1987, when he was placed under suspension and suspension order was conveyed to him vide Sangrur Office Memo No. 9758 dated June 24, 1987 he was directed to hand over the charge to Sub Inspector Jug Ram. Charge lists were sent to Circle Office, Sangrur and some shortages were found. Niranjan Dass was directed to explain the shortages but he failed to do so. He was again asked to hand over the charge of the remaining articles but he neither handed over the charge nor submitted any explanation. District Manager, Sangrur then wrote a letter the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur for registration of a case against Niranjan Dass and on the basis of that letter First Information Report No. 150 dated December 1, 1998 was registered at Police Station Lehragaga under section 408, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed by Niranjan Dass under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the First Information Report registered against him, copy of which was Annexure P 1. The petitioner alleged that the averments made in the First Information Report even if assumed to be correct did not constitute an offence under section 408, Indian Penal Cede because there were no allegations of dishonest misappropriation of any article. Moreover, from the facts of the case only a civil liability was made out and the department had already resorted to the civil remedy by filing a civil suit against the petitioner which was pending in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur where recovery of amount was claimed. Registration of a criminal case under these circumstances was an abused process of law. In reply to the petition this fact was not denied that Civil suit was already pending against the petitioner rather it was contended that the civil remedy was quite distinct from criminal proceedings, which were based on public policy.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that as a civil suit for recovery of amount was already pending against the petitioner, first information report (Annexure P1 was liable to be quashed, as that was got registered just as a savour of vindictiveness. Where the dispute assumed the character of civil nature, criminal proceedings should not be permited to continue, in the interest of justice. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the case of Harbhagwan Dass v. The Sate of Punjab, 1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 156 and Mrs. Manjeet Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports 88 . In this latter case, the Punsup supplied various qualities and quantities of rice to the shelling mill, but the petitioners failed to deliver the requisite quantity of rice after shelling to the Concerned authorities. On the basis of the terms of agreement, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator who gave his award and then a case was got registered for an offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code It was held :

"No doubt, certain set of facts may amount to a criminal offence as well as lead to a dispute of civil nature, yet all the same, the parties cannot be allowed to use the criminal courts to wreak vengeance upon the other side especially when they had resorted to arbitration clause in the agreement and the arbitrator had already given an award."

It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the above mentioned authorities were not applicable to the facts of the present case as in this case the matter was not referred to any arbitrator nor any award had been obtained against the petitioner, Simply because a civil suit had been filed against the petitioner for recovery of the amount is no ground to quash the F.I.R. Annexure P/1. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the case of Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) Recent Criminal Reports 94 where also a civil suit had been filed and then criminal proceedings were launched against an employee of Punsup for an offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. It was held that both criminal and civil proceedings against the petitioner were maintainable. I find that this authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and mere filing of a civil suit will not amount to an abuse of process of Court if the department wants to take criminal action against the petitioner also. It has been clearly laid down that civil and criminal remedies are coextensive and not mutually exclusive. They can run sideby side as their purpose and effect is altogether different. Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, 1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 539 is an authority, on that Point.

It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process'' of the Court. The petitioner has failed to make out any case that F. I. R. Annexure P/1 should be quashed to prevent the abuse of procers of law and to secure the ends of justice. His petition is therefore dismissed.