Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 220 (MP)

SANTOSH CHOUBEY v. PANKAJ GULATI

2004-03-05

S.K.PANDE

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC, petitioner requests for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 376/2002, pending in the Court of MFC, Jabalpur. ( 2. ) PETITIONER Santosh Choubey is the Director of All India Society for Electronics and Computer Technology (AISECT) having office and headquarter at Bhopal. As a Director, he granted franchise to respondent Pankaj gulati and appointed him as District Manager to look after the centres at jabalpur and for the purpose, demanded a security amount of Rs. 50,000/ -. The amount was accordingly paid by the respondent. Acting as a District manager for District Jabalpur, the respondent collected the following amounts from the students of 24 centres :- (a) Rs. 2,90,003/- for the Session beginning from July, 2000 to September, 2001. (b) Rs. 1,10,008/- for the Sessions beginning from April, 2001 to September, 2001. (c) Rs. 1,60,000/- for the Sessions beginning from October, 2001 to March, 2002. The amount aforesaid was remitted to the petitioner. Under the agreement, the respondent was entitled to Royalty at the rate of 5% on the total sum. It was agreed that respondent would be entitled for 40% share for the affiliation of new centres and 60% was the share to be taken by the petitioner. The respondent was also entitled for 25% share in case of renewal franchise with the centres in the District of Jabalpur. Having received the total amount from the respondent, the petitioner resiled from the promise and revoked the franchise. On being asked to return Rs. 50,000/-, amount of security deposit and Royalty share etc. the petitioner refused to oblige, therefore, the respondent filed a complaint (D-7) before the MFC, Jabalpur. Recording statement of respondent (D-8), the MFC vide order dated 18-10-2002, directed registration of Criminal Case (376/2002) under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against the petitioner. ( 3. ) IT is contended that the MFC committed manifest error in law in registering the criminal case against the petitioner for an offence under sections 406,420 of IPC completely overlooking the facts that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken to their face value did not constitute a criminal offence. The undisputed contract in question and consideration of reciprocal obligation of parties and allegations of breach against petitioner, did not constitute any offence. The undisputed contract in question and consideration of reciprocal obligation of parties and allegations of breach against petitioner, did not constitute any offence. At the most a contractual civil dispute exists between the parties and for which the respondent should not have permitted to abuse the process of Court. ( 4. ) PARTICIPATORY Management Scheme (D-2), Clause 8 regulates the payment of money between the parties. The respondent contended that an amount of Rs. 2,90,003/- for the Session beginning from July, 2000 to september, 2001, Rs. 1,10,008/- for the Session beginning from April, 2001 to september, 2001 and Rs. 1,60,000/- for the Session beginning from October, 2001 to March, 2002 was collected by him from the students of 24 centres and was sent to the petitioner. From the aforesaid amount, he is entitled to a royalty at the rate 5%. Further, from the affiliation fees, share of 40% and commission of renewal fees at the rate 25% was payable to him. It is contended that resiling from the contract-promise the petitioner retained the entire amount and even refused to refund the security amount of Rs. 50,000/ -. The facts aforesaid were deposed by the respondent before the MFC (D-8 ). On the basis aforesaid, the MFC proceeded to register the Criminal Case under sections 406 and 420 of IPC and directed issuance of process against the petitioner. On the basis of judgment U. Dhar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, 2003 (2) AIR SCW 466, it has been contended that the dispute being about recovery of money was purely of civil nature, hence criminal complaint is not maintainable and liable to be quashed. Contrary to this in Rajesh Bajaj vs. State of NCT of Delhi and others, (1999) 3 SCC 259 , it has been held that if averments in complaint prima facie make out a case for investigation the high Court can not quash the complaint merely because one or two ingredients of the offence has not been stated in detail and that the complaint disclosed a commercial or money transaction. Many a cheating is committed in the course of commercial or money transaction. Therefore, on the basis aforesaid, it would not be expedient to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. ( 5. Many a cheating is committed in the course of commercial or money transaction. Therefore, on the basis aforesaid, it would not be expedient to quash the criminal proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. ( 5. ) REGISTRATION of Criminal Case No. 376/2002 on the basis of complaint-statements (D-7 and D-8), can not be said to be improper or an abuse of process of Court. Consequently, petition under Section 482, Cr. PC fails and is dismissed. M. Cr. C. dismissed.