AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble B.C. Kandpal, J.—By way of this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 479 of 2003 (Old No. 1913 of 2001), Smt. Saroj Mehta Vs. Tarun Kukreja & others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate - 1st, Dehradun. Brief facts giving rise to this petition as per the petition are that the petitioner''s company are the registered companies under the Companies Act from 1955 and these companies are manufacturing units of different kinds of furniture. The petitioner No. 1 is the Director of M/s De Bono Flexcom (I) Ltd. And the petitioner No. 2 is the Director of M/s Delite Kom Ltd. The respondent No. 2 is also doing the business of furniture under the name and style of M/s Mehta Handicrafts. Therefore, a contract arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 with regard to the supply of the furniture. However, subsequently some dispute arose between the parties and the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners before the court of Judicial Magistrate - 1st, Dehradun u/s 420, 120B I.P.C. The court below summoned the petitioners have challenged before this Court by way of this petitioner u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
It would be pertinent to mention some paragraphs of the notice sent by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners through his counsel Mr. Anjali Gusain, which is contained as Annexure No. 8 to the petition. Paragraph No. 14 of the notice runs as follows:-
That instead of honouring your commitments you have made an illegal and wrong demand in your letter dated 07.09.2002 to my client which letter was duly replied.
Thereafter, paragraphs No. 16 and 17 of this notice are also relevant which are reproduced as below:-
That my client is incurring an additional expenditure of Rs. 3,000/- per month for storage of the defective/damaged goods lying in Dehradun. The approximate cost of the returnable goods is Rs. 70,000/-(Rupees Seventy Thousand appox.)
That despite several verbal and written requests and demands you have not honoured your part of the contract with my client and it appears that you had intentions, to defraud my client right from the beginning of your dealings with my client. You have willfully deceived my client and indulged in wrongful gain and unjust enrichment by withholding my clients dues and are also liable for damages and breach of contract."
The respondent No. 2 by way of aforesaid notice dated 25.09.2001 has assigned the petitioners to remit a sum of Rs. 5,25,644/- being 15% commission in the ONGC transaction, 22% commission on GMVN transaction, 15% commission in the Pragati Sales transaction, Rs. 15,000/- as loss incurred for non supply of goods, Rs. 625/- as payment towards advertisement cost, Rs. 400/- for payment of banners, Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for harassment and breach of contract, Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of business and good will together in the interest thereupon.
The aforesaid ingredient made in the notice, which have been sent by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners shows that it is a case which pertains to the settlement of the dispute with regard to the amounts due between the parties. Therefore, at best, this can be a case for breach of contract, which is in the civil nature.
It is settled law that where a case related to the civil nature, the accused should not be unnecessarily dragged in the criminal proceedings and the trial court or the court below summoning the process against the accused should consider this aspect, as to whether the accused is liable, for any breach of penal offence.
On the basis of the material available before me, I am of the clear view that it is not a case in which the ingredient of Section 120B, 420 I.P.C. are attracted. Utmost, the petitioners can be held to be the wrong doer for committing the breach of contract with the respondent No. 2 but for this wrongful act, the petitioners cannot be dragged in the criminal prosecution.
For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that summoning of the petitioners by the court below to face the trial u/s 120B, 420 I.P.C., is completely an abuse of process of court, which has resulted the grave miscarriage of justice.
I, therefore, quash the order dated 09.09.2004 (contained as Annexure No. 14 of the petition) passed by the court below issuing the process against the petitioners. I also quash the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Civil Judge - 1st, Dehradun against the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed.