9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 837X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions 468, 406 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. Short facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that in 1998, appellant Suneet Gupta entered into a registered Partnership Firm with one Shashi Kant Mangla in the name and style of M/s K.M. Agencies. The said Firm was the stockist and distributor of consumer goods of M/s Johnson & Johnson, a Limited Multinational Company ('M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.' for short). According to the appellant, partnership of M/s K.M. Agencies had certain claims over M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. on account of freight, octroi paid for goods returned, display of goods of the company, etc. It is the case of the appellant that the above claims were duly verified by the officials of M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. 4. In or about March, 2001, differences arose between the two partners of M/s K.M. Agencies, i.e. between the appellant herein and Shashi Kant Mangla, the other partner. The latter, therefore, joined another partnership firm of M/s Mangla Agencies with Ravi Kant Mangla, Atul Gupta and two others. It is the allegation of the appellant that Shashi Kant Mangla who was a partner along with the appellant of M/s K.M. Agencies fals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harwal, Anil Triloki Nath Sharma and Vivek Bhatnagar. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein as also Surrinder Mohan, proprietor of M/s Key Ess Associates obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court. Other three accused persons, namely, Shashi Kant Mangla, Ravi Kant Mangla and Atul Gupta, all partners of M/s Mangla Agencies were denied anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. During the pendency of their bail applications before the High Court, however, the prosecution made a statement that the presence of those three accused was not required in the case and consequently their bail petitions became infructuous. Meanwhile, the respondents herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 49200/2003 and 30393/2004 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana under Section 482 of the Code for quashing FIR registered against them. 5. The appellant also stated that a detailed inquiry was made by the Police. It collected the entire evidence and found that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons and accordingly charge-sheet was submitted on May 13, 2004 against accused persons, namely, Devinder Sabharwal, Vivek Bhatnagar, Anil Triloki Nath Sharma and Swami Raote. Swam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ach other and with a view to deprive M/s K.M. Agencies in general and the appellant-complainant in particular, payment was made by M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd. to M/s Mangla Agencies. Thus prima facie all the accused had committed offences mentioned in the FIR and the High Court should not have quashed it. The High Court was also not right, submitted the counsel, in holding that it was a civil dispute and there was abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant in initiating criminal proceedings. It was submitted that apart from civil liability, the accused persons had committed crimes and on the basis of allegations in the FIR, and on investigation being made, the police authorities found substance in the allegations of the complainant and charge-sheet was submitted. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the High Court by directing the respondents to face criminal proceedings. 10. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents supported the order passed by the High Court. It was submitted that the dispute is of a civil nature. It was a dispute between two partnership firms and initiation of criminal proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, a notice through an advocate was issued by the complainant only on March 4, 2003, i.e. after substantial period about two years. A complaint was made to Director General of Police, Chandigarh by the complainant in May, 2003. The record further reveals, as stated by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the counter- affidavit, that it was contended by the accused that the matter was civil in nature and based on commercial transactions and there was a dispute between the parties and as such there was no element of mens rea. It was also submitted by the accused that the complainant, with an ulterior motive and mala fide intention, used pressure tactics and was harassing them in connivance with local police and filed a complaint on May 2, 2003. The police authorities were convinced about the nature of dispute and after seeking legal opinion from District Attorney closed the proceedings. Subsequently, however, the complainant 'after making cosmetic changes in the earlier complaint' and using undue influence filed FIR No. 266 of 2003 on September 16, 2003 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 406 read with 120B, IPC. According to the accused, it was motivated and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... early 2 years. The first notice was issued after passage of long time on March 4, 2003. This notice was clearly to drag the company into the inter se dispute between two partners. 15. The Court proceeded to state; The complaint of Suneet Gupta and the steps taken by the police have clearly converted a tripartite civil dispute into a criminal one and have involved the managers of the principals in a dispute between the partners of the firm. 16. The High Court, therefore, concluded that the steps taken by the complainant Suneet Gupta were in clear abuse of process of law and accordingly allowed both the petitions. 17. By passing the impugned order and quashing criminal proceedings, in our opinion, the High Court has neither committed any error of law nor of jurisdiction which deserves interference in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. 18. Our attention has been invited by the learned Counsel for the accused to several decisions of this Court. In our opinion, however, it is not necessary to refer to those decisions since we are of the view that the High Court was right in quashing criminal proceedings. 19. We may, however, refer to one aspect. Learned Coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
