Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1278 (PNJ)

Manjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-11-10

V.M.JAIN

body2001
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the case bearing FIR No. 122 dated 2.8.2001 under Sections 406/420 IPC, registered in PS City Muktsar on the ground that the matter was already pending adjudication before the Arbitrator. 2. The aforesaid FIR was got registered by the District Manager, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, Muktsar (hereinafter referred to as PUNSUP) against the petitioners. It was alleged in the said FIR that M/s Raman Rice Mills, Muktsar (of which the petitioners are partners) had agreed to shell paddy of PUNSUP and to deliver the rice after shelling to Food Corporation of India (FCI). It was alleged that agreement was entered into between the parties in this regard. It was alleged that upto 17.2.1997, M/s. Raman Rice Mills, Muktsar was entrusted 78389 bags of fine Grade-A paddy against various receipts and that the yield of rice from the find Grade-A paddy was 67% and in this manner, M/s Raman Rice Mills was to deliver 33226.85 quintals of Grade-A rice to the FCI till 28.2.1998, which date was extended upto 31.8.1998, on behalf of PUNSUP. It was alleged that M/s Raman Rice Mills had delivered only 21028.23 qunitals of rice to FCI on behalf of PUNSUP. It was alleged that stocks of paddy entrusted and lying in the premises of M/s Raman Rice Mills was physically verified on 9.7.1998 by the field staff in the presence of representatives of the said firm. It was alleged that as per the said verification shortage of 22648 bags (of paddy) was found. It was also reported that the said firm was selling the stocks of the paddy unauthorizedly and was also preparing rice which was not as per the specifications. It was alleged that in this manner, M/s Raman Rice Mills had deliberately, dishonestly and wilfully mis-appropriated, embezzled and committed criminal breach of trust by removing 23122 bags of PUNSUP paddy unauthorizedly and had milled unauthorised rice which was not as per the specifications. It was alleged that the field staff had also reported that M/s Raman Rice Mills, Muktsar had delivered 18 wagons of rice in the account of M/s Jagjit Rice Mills to the FCI. It was alleged that the field staff had also reported that M/s Raman Rice Mills, Muktsar had delivered 18 wagons of rice in the account of M/s Jagjit Rice Mills to the FCI. It was alleged that the total shortage of paddy, which had been embezzled by the said firm, would come to 16813 bags i.e. 10928 qunitals 45 kilograms, valued at Rs. 61,25,286/- including the cost of the gunny bags. 3. The aforesaid FIR was registered by the police, on receipt of a communication from the District Manager, PUNSUP, Muktsar, for the offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC and the case was under investigation. 4. In the present petition filed by accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the aforesaid FIR, it has been alleged that no offence under Section 406/420 IPC was made out, inasmuch as there was an arbitration clause in the agreement arrived at between the parties and that the matter was already pending before the Arbitrator in this regard and as such the FIR in question may be quashed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record, in my opinion, no case for quashing the aforesaid FIR is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. In Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and ors., 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 223 (SC) : JT 1999(6) SC 618, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that merely because an act has a civil profile, was not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. The provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the dispute to arbitration, was not an effective substitute for criminal prosecution when the disputed act was an offence. The arbitration was a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement, but the arbitrator could not conduct a trial of any act, which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. In the reported case, the complainant had filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate, who sent it to the Police under Section 156(3), CrPC. Thereupon, the accused moved the Gujarat High Court under Section 482, CrPC for quashment of the complaint. The Gujarat High Court quashed the complaint as also the order passed by the Magistrate thereon. This order was challenged by the complainant before the Honble Supreme Court. Thereupon, the accused moved the Gujarat High Court under Section 482, CrPC for quashment of the complaint. The Gujarat High Court quashed the complaint as also the order passed by the Magistrate thereon. This order was challenged by the complainant before the Honble Supreme Court. It was under those circumstances that the Honble Supreme Court, after holding as above, set aside the order passed by the Gujarat High Court. 7. In M/s Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Limited, 2000(2) RCR(Crl.) 122, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that there was no ground to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground that civil remedy for breach of contract was available. It was further held that both civil and criminal remedies could be pursued in diverse situations. Similar view was taken by the Honble Supreme Court, in the cases reported as Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar, 2000(1) RCR(Crl.) 228, Kamladevi Agarwal v. State of West Bengal, 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 522 and M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and anr., 2001(4) RCR(Crl.) 405. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, in my opinion, the FIR in question cannot be quashed, especially when serious allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation have been levelled against the accused petitioners. 9. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed.