2021 (7) TMI 692 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Filing a case for Suit for recovery of money after initiating action u/s 138 of N.I.Act - Validity of FIR registered - Allegation is that the discount as promised by seller were not provided - matter of contract to be proved by the second respondent for recovering the amount said to be due to him - HELD THAT - If the FIR registered against the petitioners and two others is read, it appears that the second respondent wanted to purchase laptops from the first petitioner s business concern and there is no dispute with regard to this. The petitioners dispute offering of discount to the extent of 15 to 18% and claim to have supplied the entire quantity of laptops which is again disputed by the second respondent. But what is important to be noted here is that on 16.11.2018 itself, the second petitioner lodged an FIR with Halasur Police against the second respondent, his wife Smt. H.G. Pranitha, Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy alleging that his employees viz., Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy colluded with the second respondent and his wife to run a parallel business under the name and style of Viva Info Solutions and caused loss to him - According to the second respondent, the petitioners have to pay him an amount of ₹ 4.95 crore towards the discount offered to him, which is disputed by the second petitioner. Therefore it may be stated that if really the petitioners had offered discount, it is a matter of contract to be proved by the second respondent for recovering the amount said to be due to him. He has to file a suit for recovery of money against the petitioners. If really the second respondent s grievance about cheating and forgery by the petitioners is genuine, he should have made a report to the police much earlier. If he thought of making a complaint to the police after registration of FIR against him in Cr.No.421/2018 and initiation of proceeding under Sec.138 of N.I.Act, obviously a doubt arises about the veracity in the contents of FIR 34/2019. The petitioners have made allegations against his employees viz., Mrs. Kavitha Wagamore and Mrs. Vasudha Shenoy and that the second respondent has also blamed them in his FIR. Therefore it can be said that the allegations against this petitioner in FIR No.34/2019 do not prima facie appear to be believable. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of FIR under Sections 120-B, 420, 471, 468, 465, 467, 506 of IPC - Allegations of fraud, cheating, and forgery - Dispute over business transaction involving purchase of laptops and discount offers - Accusations of non-delivery of laptops, forged invoices, and dishonored cheques - Counter-allegations of collusion and parallel business operations - Question of abuse of court process and vindictive action.

Analysis:

1. Allegations and Counter-allegations:
The petitioners sought to quash the FIR alleging it to be frivolous, emphasizing a prior FIR lodged against the second respondent and his employees for fraud and cheating. The second respondent claimed non-delivery of laptops, forged invoices, and dishonored cheques, disputing the petitioners' claims of full delivery and discount offers. The second petitioner's FIR detailed collusion and parallel business operations by the second respondent and his associates, leading to loss. The court noted discrepancies in the second respondent's claims, questioning the timing of his complaint and the veracity of his allegations.

2. Contractual Dispute and Legal Recourse:
The dispute centered around the contractual obligations regarding discounts and laptop deliveries. The petitioners argued that any dues should be pursued through a civil suit to establish the contract's terms. The court highlighted the need for the second respondent to prove the alleged discount agreement for recovery. It emphasized that issues of non-delivery and invoice discrepancies could be addressed through civil proceedings, given the existence of prior criminal complaints and charge sheets.

3. Abuse of Process and Vindictive Action:
The court considered the possibility of the FIR being an abuse of court process and a vindictive action, given the background of prior complaints and legal actions. It noted the lack of prima facie believability in the allegations against the petitioners, especially in light of the counter-allegations and previous legal proceedings. The court concluded that the criminal action against the petitioners appeared frivolous and recommended quashing the FIR to prevent further misuse of legal procedures.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the complex web of allegations, counter-allegations, and legal actions surrounding the business transaction dispute. It underscored the importance of establishing contractual terms through civil suits and avoiding the abuse of court processes for settling commercial grievances. The decision to quash the FIR aimed to curb potential misuse of legal avenues and ensure a fair resolution of the underlying disputes.