2003 (1) TMI 755 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the criminal complaint u/s 420 read with Section 511 IPC.
2. Whether the FIRs and proceedings before the Magistrate should be quashed.
3. Applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and proceedings.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Criminal Complaint u/s 420 read with Section 511 IPC:
The complainant, Sanjiva Bottling Company, alleged that Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) and other accused engaged in unfair trade practices and made false representations, causing wrongful gain and financial loss. The agreements between the parties allowed termination with a 12-month notice, which was duly given by Atlantic Industries. The Supreme Court noted that the complaint lacked allegations of misrepresentation by the appellants (A-7 to A-11) and did not establish 'mens rea' necessary for an offence u/s 420 IPC. The Court emphasized that guilty intention is essential for cheating, which was absent in this case.

2. Whether the FIRs and Proceedings Before the Magistrate Should be Quashed:
The police report suggested a civil dispute over agreement terms, advising the complainant to seek civil court relief. The Magistrate directed further investigation, leading to FIRs under Sections 420, 120-B, and 34 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute an offence against the appellants. The Court referenced precedents, including State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, to assert that FIRs not disclosing a cognizable offence can be quashed.

3. Applicability of Section 482 Cr.P.C. for Quashing the FIR and Proceedings:
The Supreme Court reiterated that inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure justice. The Court found that the complaint and FIRs did not disclose any offence against the appellants, making the proceedings liable to be quashed. The case of Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal was distinguished as it involved clear allegations of fraud and substandard goods, unlike the present case.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the complaint and FIRs against the appellants were quashed. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of 'mens rea' for cheating and the appropriateness of quashing proceedings when no cognizable offence is disclosed.