Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 3085 (PNJ)

Anil Triloknath Sharma v. State of Punjab

2006-08-01

K.S.GAREWAL

body2006
JUDGMENT K.S. GAREWAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Crl.Misc. No. 49200 M of 2003 filed by Anil Trilokhnath Sharma, Vivek Bhatnagar and Davender Sabharwal and Crl. Misc. No. 30393 M of 2004 filed by Swami Raote, as the questions of facts and law involved in both the petitions are the same. The petitioners are seeking quashing of F.I.R. No. 266 dated September 16, 2003 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 468/406/120-B IPC. 2. Anil Trilokhnath Sharma is the Area Sales Manager of M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited, Vivek Bhatnagar is the Regional Sales Manager and Davender Sabharwal is the Territory Sales Incharge of the said Company. Swami Raote was the Vice President, Customer Care Development and Export with the said Company at the relevant time , but presently is working as Marketing Director with M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited, Indonesia and is based at Jakarta Selatan. 3. Suneet Gupta, who has been impleaded as respondent No.2 in both the petitions, was the partner of M/s K.M Agencies, Ludhiana which firm was appointed as distributor by M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited. The case of the petitioners is that there were business dealings between Suneet Gupta and M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited which came to an end in June 2001. After two years, in March, 2003 Suneet Gupta issued a legal notice claiming an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,73,189/-. Initially the company replied that no amount was due or payable but later on it was found that a sum of Rs. 1,18,120.96 had been adjusted, appropriated and set off against subsequent supplies to M/s K.M. Agencies. The company wrote letter dated July 11, 2003 to M/s K.M.Agencies that an amount of Rs. 1,21,852.28 was due along with a sum of Rs. 27,672/-. As regards, a sum of Rs. 5,543.76, the company had found certain discrepancies in the claim made by M/s K.M. Agencies. According to the company, there was a dispute regarding the outstanding amount which was purely of civil nature. It was stated in the petition that Suneet Gupta started pressuring and harassing the managers of M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited and filed a false complaint against them which led to the registration of F.I.R. No. 266 dated September 16, 2003 under Sections 468/406/120-B IPC. 4. It was stated in the petition that Suneet Gupta started pressuring and harassing the managers of M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited and filed a false complaint against them which led to the registration of F.I.R. No. 266 dated September 16, 2003 under Sections 468/406/120-B IPC. 4. According to the petitioners, the contents of the FIR do not reveal commission of any criminal offence as the essential ingredients of the offence are missing. In the petition certain back ground facts have been narrated. It has been stated that the company had appointed M/s K.M. Agencies as their retail stockiest in the year 1998. M/s K.M. Agencies was a partnership firm of Suneet Gupta and Shashikant Mangla. On March 30, 2001, M/s K.M. Agencies through Shashikant Mangla wrote to the company for allotment of a new customer code in the name of M/s Mangla Agencies. Therefore, from April, 1, 2001 the company appointed M/s Mangla Agencies as their distributor. Nevertheless, certain claims of M/s K.M. Agencies were met, a draft of Rs. 60,090/- dated June 11, 2001 was sent but the same was returned with a request that the draft should be made in the name of M/s Mangla Agencies. Later through letter dated July 24, 2001,M/s K.M.Agencies again informed the Company that a draft of Rs. 86,026/- be sent against claim of baby soap and draft should be in favour of M/s Mangla Agencies. 5. For two years Suneet Gupta complainant did not contact the company and all of sudden on March 10, 2003, the company received a legal notice dated March 4, 2003 from the advocates of M/s K.M.Agencies demanding Rs. 2,73,189/-. 6. Respondent No.2 filed a reply to the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and defended the ingredients detailed in FIR by stating that he was a partner of M/s K.M. Agencies and through legal notice dated March 4, 2003 a sum of Rs. 7,83,183/- had been claimed. Reference was made to the petitioners’ letter dated July 11, 2003 which showed the break-up of Rs. 1,21,862.28 and at serial No. 15 an amount of Rs. 60090/- was due towards M/s K.M.Agencies. Initially, a draft was sent in favour of M/s K.M.Agencies but it was later cancelled and made in favour of M/s Mangla Agencies. It was stated that the petitioners had intentionally concealed the two letters both dated July 24, 2001. 1,21,862.28 and at serial No. 15 an amount of Rs. 60090/- was due towards M/s K.M.Agencies. Initially, a draft was sent in favour of M/s K.M.Agencies but it was later cancelled and made in favour of M/s Mangla Agencies. It was stated that the petitioners had intentionally concealed the two letters both dated July 24, 2001. The first letter was on the letter head of M/s K.M. Agencies and was addressed to Area Sales Manager of the company wherein it was stated that the firm M/s K.M.Agencies had closed and the draft may be issued in the name of M/s Mangla Agencies. Similar request was made in the second letter. Reference was also made to the letter dated June 12, 2001 which showed that even prior to the change of name, the change of M/s Mangla Agencies had been accepted by the company. 7. The dispute in this case is of settlement of accounts between the principal and its agent. The principal is M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited and agent was earlier M/s K.M. Agencies and later M/s Mangla Agencies. It was M/s K.M. Agencies who had informed the principal that M/s K.M. Agencies had closed and draft be issued in favour of M/s Mangla Agencies. While it is true that Suneet Gupta had also written to the principals on July 4, 2001 on behalf of M/s K.M. Agencies informing that there was a dispute between the partners of the firm and requested that no payment should be made to any party, the other partner of M/s K.M. Agencies had written to the effect that the payment should be made to M/s Mangla Agencies. 7. The dispute is between the two former partners of M/s K.M. Agencies. The nature of that dispute has not been brought out clearly in the reply and nor is it evident whether the dispute between Suneet Gupta and Shashi Kant Mangla has been resolved or not ? At the first instance, Suneet Gupta wrote on M/s K.M. Agencies’ note papers to the effect that a dispute has occurred between the partners. Later the other partner Shashi Kant Mangla wrote that payment should be made to M/s Mangla Agencies. This agency was also substituted in the company record in place of M/s K.M. Agencies. At the first instance, Suneet Gupta wrote on M/s K.M. Agencies’ note papers to the effect that a dispute has occurred between the partners. Later the other partner Shashi Kant Mangla wrote that payment should be made to M/s Mangla Agencies. This agency was also substituted in the company record in place of M/s K.M. Agencies. Whatever sums were due to M/s K.M. Agencies before M/s Mangla Agencies got substituted in the contractual relationship with M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited were paid by the M/s Johnson & Johnson Limited to M/s Mangla Agencies. 9. This is really a case of one partner trying to drag the principal company into a criminal litigation to recover dues which the principal had paid to the other partner. The dispute and the relationship inter-se has become a tripartite one. Suneet Gupta had a dispute with Shashi Kant Mangla but instead of tackling him he got lodged F.I.R. No. 266 dated September 16, 2003 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 468/406/120-B IPC to pressurize the petitioners to settle the matter. It is not a clear cut and direct case in which any contractual relationship between Suneet Gupta with the company has been breached. Indeed Suneet Gupta had no direct relationship with the company. It was M/s K.M. Agencies of which he was one of the partners which had developed contractual relationship and later in June/July, 2001, M/s Mangla Agencies got substituted in place of M/s K.M. Agencies. Suneet Gupta either ignored this development or remained oblivious of it for nearly 2 years. The first notice was issued after passage of long time on March 4, 2003. This notice was clearly designed to drag the company into the interse dispute between the two partners. 10. The complaint of Suneet Gupta and the steps taken by the police have clearly converted a tri-partite civil dispute into a criminal one and have involved the managers of the principals in a dispute between the partners of the firm. 11. The steps taken by Suneet Gupta are clearly an abuse of the process of law. Resultantly, both the petitions are allowed and the F.I.R. No. 266 dated September 16, 2003 registered at Police Station Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, under Sections 468/406/120-B IPC and all further proceedings are hereby quashed.