Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 86 (JK)

M. C. Fills Enterprises v. Navshesh Mahajan

2008-03-27

J.P.SINGH

body2008
1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of proceedings initiated by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Forest Magistrate) Jammu, vide his order of November 21, 2006 in issuing process against the petitioners under Section 420 RPC on respondent no. 1s complaint. 2. I have gone through the compliant and statement of respondent no. 1 recorded on oath, in which the real grievance projected appears to be regarding non-execution of agreement by the petitioners for appointing respondent no. 1 as Super Stockiest of MCFILLS Enterprises despite receipt of an amount of Rs. 8 lacs and non-payment of the full amount claimed by him as cost of the expired products, and the charges payable to him in terms of petitioners letter of January 28, 2006. 3. In order to appreciate the submissions of learned counsel for the parties as to whether a case for issuance of process had been made out by respondent no.1 against the petitioners, perusal of paragraph no. 15 of the compliant becomes necessary. This paragraph reads thus:- "15. That the complainant paid a sum of Rs.4.00 lacs by way of Cheque No.54320 dated 6.3.2006, Rs. 2,27,733.08 vide Cheque No. 7254207 dated 1.4.2006, Rs. 4,94,774/- vide Cheque No. 7254241 dated 17.4.2006 and Rs. 3,41,055/- vide Cheque No.7251256 dated 01.06.2006 to the accused persons for the supply of stocks; and when the complainant raised his claims for the month of Feb., March, April, May, June, July, August, Sept., Oct. and Nov. 2006 for total amount of Rs. 18,75,263/- on account of expired products and charges payable in terms of letter dated 28.1.2006, the accused paid only a partial amount of Rs. 5,95,369.50 but withheld a sum of Rs. 12,79,894/- to the complainant with a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant of his due amount." 4. A reading of paragraph No.15 of the complaint and perusal of respondent no. 1s preliminary statement on oath before the learned Magistrate, indicates that the grievance of respondent no. 1 against the petitioner and others appears to be only for non-payment of the amount claimed by him as the cost of expired products and charges payable in terms of petitioners letter dated 28.1.2006. 5. According to the complainant-respondent no. 1, the petitioner had cheated him by paying him an amount of Rs. 5,93,569.50 only as against his claim of Rs. 18,75,263.00. 6. 5. According to the complainant-respondent no. 1, the petitioner had cheated him by paying him an amount of Rs. 5,93,569.50 only as against his claim of Rs. 18,75,263.00. 6. The dispute/grievance projected by the complainant in his complaint would not, in my opinion, amount to commission of any offence under the Ranbir Penal Code, for non settlement of respondent no. 1s claim for recovery of cost of expired produces and charges allegedly payable to him in terms of petitioners letter dated 28.1.2006, cannot by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be an act of the petitioner, which may indicate about his dishonest intention, right from the very beginning of the transaction. Subsequent conduct of the petitioner in not settling claim of respondent no. l, to his satisfaction, and accepting his claim to the extent of Rs. 5,93,569.50/- only, would give rise only to a civil cause of action rather than a cause for invoking the criminal jurisdiction of the Court. 7. Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class has passed a cryptic order without referring to the contents of the complaint and giving reasons for his proceeding against the petitioner. 8. Respondent no. 1s complaint and his preliminary statement in support thereof do not, therefore, prima facie make out the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 417 or 420 RPC. 9. I am, therefore, of the view that respondent no. 1s complaint before the learned Magistrate was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court to settle the civil dispute which is alleged to have arisen between respondent no. 1 and the petitioner, because of non-settlement of respondent no. 1s claim in full. 10. Allowing this petition, I would accordingly quash the proceedings initiated by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Forest Magistrate) Jammu, on respondent `no. 1s complaint against the petitioner and others.