Santokh Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal, J.

Santokh Singh and others have moved this Criminal miscellaneous u/s. 482 Cr. PC. for quashing of the First Information Report No. 178 dated 151190 for offences under sections 420, 406, 506 IPC, registered at Police Station ADivision, Amritsar.

The impugned FIR Annexure P1 was registered on the basis of a statement made by Hari Krishan Bhatia of firm M/s. R.L. Bhatia & Sons, Military Contractors. The allegations made therein are to the effect that this firm had taken the contract for the supply of vegetables to the Army at Jammu and Udhampur. The petitioners approached them and undertook to execute the contract on behalf of the firm and they were even given power of attorney along with a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ to enable them to carry out the work. The petitioners were responsible for profit and loss of the work. They continued to carry out the work till 1031990. They then approached the complainant that the vegetables at Jammu were in short supply and that the same might be supplied from Amritsar and that they would make the payment therefor. On this plea, goods worth Rs. 1,32,000/ despatched from Amritsar to the petitioners during 10390 to 31390. On 31390 the complainant, along with Janak Raj Bhatia visited Jammu and gave a statement of account and asked the petitioners to make payment. They, however, disclosed that the bills had not been passed and the payments would be made as soon as they got payment of outstanding bills. The complainant and his companion then returned, believing that they would not be cheated as the party was good. They then received an information from the Military Supply Depot that the petitioners were not executing the contract properly. The complainant then visited Jammu and met the petitioners and learnt that the goods sent had not been duly supplied to the Army. Even the freight of the goods had not been paid. He then asked the petitioner to settle the accounts, but they put the matter off. The complainant then took over the execution of the contract. Sharan Pal Singh and Joginder Singh also agreed that they would pay the loss if any for the execution of the work. They also assured that they would finalise the accounts by visiting Amritsar and would make payment. On 41190 all the petitioners visited Sabzi Mandi, Amritsar and settled the accounts. The petitioners accepted the accounts and promised to make the payment later. The complainant, however, insisted on immediate payment at which the petitioners got flared up and Sharan Pal Singh and Joginder Singh slapped him and also threatened to kill him at the spot. All the three petitioners held out a threat that if they even visited Jammu, their dead bodies would only come. They then left. The petitioners had, thus, cheated the complainant and misappropriated the goods.

The entire disputed between the parties is clearly of a civil nature. The complainant had entered into an agreement with the Military Authorities for supplying vegetables. They further appointed the petitioners as their agent to execute that contract and for that purpose issued a power of attorney in their favour. Although originally the petitioners had been duly executing the contract but subsequently they had failed to execute the same. After 31390, the remaining contract was executed by the complainant himself. The petitioners agreed to settle the amounts and pay the amount with respect to the losses, if any, suffered by the complainant. They came to Amritsar to settle the accounts. The dispute arose only when the respondent wanted immediate payment while the petitioners wanted time to make payment. This was only a civil dispute between the parties.

In case it is accepted that on account of this dispute about payment the petitioners flared up and hurled abuses the same does not make out any cognizable offence.

In a case where the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, criminal forum cannot be allowed to be used to settle the same. In support of this finding, reliance may be placed on the observations is Tirlok Singh and ors. v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 and K.A.M. Anwar Ali v. Janab Mohd. Noorullah Saheb, 1987(3) Crimes 482. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned FIR and all the subsequent proceedings.