9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perform the work was issued by the appellant. In response to this communication, the complainant sent his reply (Annexure P-3) admitting that the construction activities have stopped due to his financial condition on account of imposition of GST and other hindrances - the complainant having himself admitted its inability to perform the work and requesting to settle the account as early as on 23.11.2017, it is certainly a civil dispute arising out of contract. The impugned order(s) of the High Court is set aside and the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed - Appeal allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA For the Petitioner : Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suvendu suvasis Das ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be paid by C.P.W.D, Kolkata. However, the appellant without paying any single pie received Rs. 30 lakhs from very first running bill paid by the C.P.W.D. Similarly, the appellant received the amount from all the running bills and misappropriated the same causing loss to the complainant company which hampered the complainant company to execute the rest of the work entrusted by the appellant. A communication for settlement of account was sent on 23.11.2017 by the complainant company to the appellant but the same was ignored and at the same time the appellant continued to execute the rest of the work. It is further alleged that the appellant did not take any interest for making payment of pending bills of the complainant company for sett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant and harass the appellant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the SDJM, Bhubaneswar who directed to register the FIR vide its order dated 17.12.2019. In pursuance thereof, FIR bearing No. 113 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020 was registered against the appellant. 6. The appellant was arrested on 24.02.2021 on the basis of the first FIR and was released on bail on 09.03.2021. In order to further harass the appellant another application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was preferred against the appellant concealing the earlier FIR and once again the SDJM, Bhubaneswar passed an order on 09.03.2021. The first FIR was registered on complaint under Section 156 (3) by Bimal Kumar Aggarwal, Director of M/s. PGL whereas the secon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to him, the petition is pre-mature and has rightly been dismissed by the High Court on that count. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the material placed before us, we are satisfied that the impugned proceedings arising out of FIR No. 113 dated 13.02.2020 and the proceedings arising out of order dated 09.03.2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of FIR on the same cause of action are an abuse of the process of court inasmuch as the matter is purely of civil nature arising out of an agreement between the parties for execution of a civil work. 11. Undeniably, the agreement contains an arbitration clause and the arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be an abuse of the process of the Court. 13. The legal position as to when an offence arising out of contract being of civil nature, can be quashed has been settled by this Court in catena of judgments. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 673 , this Court held thus in para 12: 12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court and the High Court committed an error in refusing to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings. 15. In Kapil Aggarwal Ors. V. Sanjay Sharma Ors. (2021) 5 SCC 524 , Court observed in para 18.1 as under: 18.1. ..inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to achieve salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into weapon of harassment. When the Court is satisfied that criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or that it amounts to bringing pressure upon the accused, in exercise of inherent powers, such proceedings can be quashed. 16. In the light of the above referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
