Prabhat Bhushan and Others vs The State of Bihar and Uday Narain Shukla

Chy. S.N. Mishra, J.—All the 15 petitioners are the Ex-President and the members of the Executive Committee of the Bihar Motion Pictures Association which is registered under the Company Act, have filed this writ application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding initialed on the basis of company petition filed by Opp. party no. 2 Uday Naram Shukla for offence punishable under sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code which is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, being Complaint Case No. 127(C) of 1995. Opp. party no. 2 being the Manager of M/s. Mahadeva Talkies of which one Krishna Chandra Prasad Singh is the proprietor, filed a complaint alleging inter alia therein that on 25.4.1994 accused Nalin Yagnik came to the cinema hall and demanded a sum of Rs. 13,395/- on account of the back dues of cinema, in question. The complainant refused to oblige him on the ground that a sum of 6,090/- has already been paid to him on 16.7.1992. It is alleged that the said accused, thereafter, threatened the complainant, it is further alleged that all the members of the Executive Committee of the Association including the Chairman has hatched a conspiracy to cause financial loss to the complainant and his master showing arrears to the extent of Rs. 8,500/-. It is further alleged that the accused persons by forging a document, tried to cheat a sum of Rs. 13,395/-. The Complainant, accordingly, informed his proprietor and, on his instruction the instant complaint petition was filed, in the court. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint petition for instituting a case in terms of section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Lakhisarai P.S. Case No. 169 of 1995 it is alleged that the investigation is still pending. A copy of the complaint petition is made Annexure-1 to this writ application.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the very initiation of the proceeding firstly on the ground that even if the investigation made in the complaint petition/F.I.R. is taken on its face value, no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the depute is, at best of civil nature which can be adjudicated by filing a suit in Civil Court. Secondly, the dispute, in hand, has already been adjudicated by the arbitrator and an award was passed against the complainant with respect to the same amount involved in the instant proceeding which has already been challenged in a suit filed by the complainant. In order to appreciate submission of the learned counsel, some relevant facts, which are not in dispute are as under. According to the Articles of Association, the dispute between the parties was referred to the arbitrator i.e. before the Dispute Settlement Board, consisting of the Chairman and the Members of the Executive Committee of the Bihar Motion Pictures Association. The Arbitrator has given award on 25.5.1995. Being aggrieved by the Award, the complainant challenged the award by filing a suit which was registered as Title Suit No. 33 of 1995. The said title suit is still pending. In this case, no one appears on behalf of Opposite Party no. 2 in spite of notice having been served on him and as such this writ application is being disposed of on the basis of the averments made therein. In the light of the submission of the learned counsel I have gone through the complaint petition where from it appears that the allegations made in the complaint petition even if accepted in to, do not constitute criminal offence much less the offence alleged against the petitioners. That apart the same very dispute was referred to the Arbitrator in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Articles of Association wherein both the parties had appeared and took part in the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the Award, the complainant has filed a suit challenging the award. It is admitted position that after the arbitrator has given the award the instant complaint petition was filed on 14.7.1995, whereas the suit was filed on 26.7.1995. The complainant having participated in the arbitration proceeding is not supposed to file a complaint petition on the same cause of action which has been adjudicated strictly in accordance with the Articles of Association. The complainant has rightly filed the suit challenging the award. The said suit is still pending wherein it is alleged that injunction has already been obtained by the complainant resulting non-implementation of the award as yet.

After having heard the learned counsel and going through the materials on record including the complaint petition, I am of the view that the very initiation of the criminal proceeding for the alleged offence against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the court and, as such, requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the very initiation of the criminal proceeding being Complaint Case No. 127(C) of 1995 corresponding to Lakhisarai P.S. case No. 169 of 1995 is hereby quashed and this writ application is, thus, allowed.