Prakash Chandra Khetan vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Others

D.K. Sinha, J.—Petitioner has preferred the contempt proceedings against the members of the opposite party except the State of Jharkhand for their wilful disobedience to the order dated 9.7.2002, passed by this Court in Cr.W.J.C. No. 203 of 1999 for breach of the undertaking given before the Hon''ble Court and thereby lowering the authority of this Court.

The fact of the case in brief was that the petitioner had instituted a Complaint Case No. 488 of 1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi related to various offences including cheating and criminal misappropriation against the Opposite Party Nos. 3 to 6 for non-supply of Maruti vehicles even after due deposit of the advance money and order placed for supply by the petitioner complainant. On forwarding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, a police case bearing Chutia P.S. Case No. 114 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 2089 of 1999 was registered against the accused persons including the members of the opposite party herein. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 to 6 moved Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court by filing Cr.W.J.C. No. 203 of 1999(R) seeking quashment of the aforesaid),'' I criminal proceeding in which the petitioner appeared as respondent and contested the writ application. The learned Counsel submitted that finding no way out, the opposite parties herein entered into compromise with the petitioner and in turn, promised and assured that they would supply the vehicles under the same terms and conditions as the vehicles were booked and in that manner, they impressed upon the petitioner to execute an instrument of compromise and for withdrawal of the writ with stipulations. In the same spirit, it was assured by the members of the opposite party to the petitioner that the vehicles would be supplied "as it was booked". Relying upon the aforesaid promise, assurance and representation, the petitioner preferred not to contest and to enter into compromise with them. Accordingly, petitioner executed an indemnity bond as contemplated between them under expectation that the vehicles would be supplied to him on the same terms and conditions "as it was booked". Pursuant to such compromise, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 422 of 2002 before this Court admitting the compromise and execution of the indemnity bond and requested the Court for disposal of the writ application Cr.W.J.C. No. 203 of I999(R) in terms of the compromise.. The writ application aforesaid was disposed of on 9.7.2002 with the following observation,

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Company is ready to supply the vehicles to respondent No. 2 subject to payment of difference amount of the cost of the vehicles. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 also conceded to this '' effect that the Company has agreed to supply the vehicles and on this score he has got no objection if the criminal proceeding is quashed with respect to the aforementioned petitioners since there is an understanding reached in between the petitioner Company and respondent No. 2 that the vehicles will be supplied to the parties as it was booked.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the instant criminal writ application filed by the petitioners is allowed and'' the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 114 of 1999 is, hereby, quashed as against the aforementioned petitioners in terms of the statements made in LA. No. 422 of 2002 which is at flag "U".

On the other hand, Mr. Delip Jerath, learned Counsel submits that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 6 in no manner have caused wilful disobedience to the order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court in Cr.W.J.C No. 203 of 1999(K) so as to call for contempt of Court against any of them. As a matter of fact, undertaking was between the parties and the Court had simply put the seal to their understanding, hence no contempt of Court.

From the facts and submissions made on behalf of the parties it is evidently clear that this Court while disposing of the writ petition did not pass any order or direction and therefore, the question of disobedience of an order/direction on the part of the members of the opposite party does not arise. Nevertheless, Cr.W.J.C. No. 203 of 1999(R), referred to above was withdrawn on the interlocutory application (LA. No. 422 of 2002) presented by the respondent-petitioner herein on the basis of which the criminal proceedings arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 114 of 1999 was quashed against the petitioners-opposite parties in terms of the statements made therein and, therefore, I find and observe that the petitioner Prakash Chandra Khetan failed to make out any case of contempt of Court against any of the opposite parties.

There being no merit, this contempt petition is dismissed.