The Managing Director Future Logistic Solutions Limited vs State of Karnataka

B.V. Pinto

This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 46/2010 of Adugodi Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 506 IPC.

It is the case of the petitioners that there was a Transport agreement between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2 for transport of some goods from the warehouse to their retail outlets and in respect of the said contract between the Complainants-the petitioners and the second respondent, a case in Crime No. 365/2009 was registered in MICO layout Police Station for an offence u/s 381 IPC. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in C.C.No. 7080/2010 before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and the said case is pending trial. The second respondent as a counter case has filed a PCR bearing No. 4432/2010 against the petitioners before the Court and the Court has referred the matter to Adugodi Police Station for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., Consequent upon the said reference, the police have registered a case in Crime No. 46/2010 for the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 506 IPC. The contents of the said complaint are to the effect that the petitioners have entered into an agreement for goods transport on a monthly rental of Rs. 31,500/- and thereafter at a rate of Rs. 7 per km. and when the Tata 407 vehicle was given to the custody of the petitioners in compliance of the contract, the petitioners have not paid the monthly rental and hence they have heated Respondent No. 2. Hence, the complaint.

Heard Sundaresh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Satish R. Girji, learned HCGP for the Respondent No. 1/State. Respondent No. 2 though served remained absent and did not contest the matter.

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that a suit in O.S.No. 6419/2010 also has been filed by the petitioners against Respondent No. 2 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,12,556.35/- and the said suit is pending before the City Civil Court, Bangalore.

The petitioners have also filed a complaint for theft of the goods entrusted to Respondent No. 2 for transport in respect of which C.C.No. 7080/2010 is pending trial. In this background, the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 for recovery of the alleged transport charges is a claim which is civil in nature and Respondent No. 2 has misused the Criminal Justice System by registering a complaint for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 506 IPC. He submits that the perusal of the entire contents of the complaint in PCR No. 4432/2010, it indicates that consequent upon the contract entered into between the petitioners and Respondent No. 2, there is a payment due to Respondent No. 2 in respect of the transport charges and no ingredients of offences either of Section 419 or 420 IPC is made out, in order to attract the provisions u/s 419 or 420 IPC. Further he submits that the allegations u/s 506 IPC is only added to give color to the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2. Under the circumstances, he submits that the complaint deserves to be quashed. He relies on the decision reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 996 in the case of V.Y. Jose and Anotehr v. State of Gujarat and Another, wherein it is stated as follows: -

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 482 and 483 - Exercise of Jurisdiction under S. 482 - When warranted - Case essentially involving a civil dispute - Held, S. 482 serves a salutary purpose that a person should not undergo harassment of litigation even though no case has been made out against him - Besides, S. 483 casts a duty on High Court to supervise functioning of trial courts - Therefore, a matter which essentially involves dispute of civil nature should not be allowed to become subject-matter of criminal proceedings which may be resorted to as a short cut to execution of a non-existent decree - Complaint alleging cheating filed against appellants whereas the case in fact involved civil dispute relating to a contract - Held, High Court ought to have exercised its power under S. 482 - Civil Suit - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - S. 9 - Contract and Specific Relief -Remedies/Relief - Public Law/Writ Remedies -Initiation of criminal proceedings in case of breach of contract - Contract Act 1872 -S. 73.

I have heard Sri Satish R. Girji, learned HCGP for Respondent No. 1/State also in the matter.

On a careful consideration of the entire materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners have not only filed a criminal complaint regarding the theft of the goods entrusted to Respondent No. 2 for transport purpose, they have also filed a Civil Suit for recovery of damages arising out of the theft and negligence on the part of the second respondent. The averments in the complaint in PCR 4432/2010 do not disclose any commission of offence much less under Sections 419 & 420 IPC. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that continuation of proceedings in the said case would advance the abuse of process of law and necessarily the same deserves to be quashed.

Accordingly, the proceedings in PCR No. 4432/2010 pending before the VI ACMM, Bangalore and the consequent Crime No. 46/2010 of Adugodi Police Station, is hereby quashed. Petition Is allowed.