1987 (3) TMI 530 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Authority to file the complaint.
2. Jurisdiction of the court at Kharar.
3. Validity of the charge under Section 420 IPC.
4. Nature of the dispute (civil vs. criminal).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Authority to File the Complaint:
The petitioner questioned the authority of Mr. Ashok Chhabra, Secretary of Messrs Punjab Tractors Limited, to file the complaint. The court examined a resolution from the Board of Directors dated November 4, 1982, which authorized Mr. Chhabra to file complaints. The petitioner's counsel argued that prior approval from the Vice-Chairman or Managing Director was necessary, but no such approval was on record. The court noted that this objection was raised for the first time in revision and found a clear statement by P.W. 1 Ashok Chhabra confirming his authorization to file the complaint. The court concluded there was no basis to hold that the complaint was filed by an unauthorized person.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court at Kharar:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Kharar court based on a precedent from the Allahabad High Court in *Sushil Chandra Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh*. The court analyzed Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which extends jurisdiction in cases of cheating involving deception by letters or telecommunication. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in *K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab*, which held that jurisdiction could be at either the place of misrepresentation or where the consequence occurred. The court found no merit in the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge, holding that the Kharar court had proper jurisdiction.

3. Validity of the Charge under Section 420 IPC:
The petitioner argued that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out, citing letters (exhibits D/2, D/7, and D/8) indicating continued business relations post the alleged deception. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the letters did not negate the elements of cheating established by the complaint and evidence. The petitioner also contended that charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were mutually exclusive. The court clarified that the complaint and evidence clearly established the false representation leading to the delivery of tractors, thus justifying the charge under Section 420 IPC.

4. Nature of the Dispute (Civil vs. Criminal):
The petitioner contended that the dispute was civil, as it involved the non-payment for tractors, and should be adjudicated in a civil court, especially since a civil suit was already filed. The court emphasized that the pendency of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings for cheating. The court distinguished this case from *Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi* and *Nandu Babu v. Rajendra Kumar Singh*, where disputes were purely civil. The court found that the elements of cheating were prima facie established, warranting criminal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the trial magistrate's order framing a charge under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. The court directed the trial magistrate to expedite the trial.