Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1183 (PNJ)

Mohinder Singh Lathar v. State of Haryana

2009-07-17

MAHESH GROVER

body2009
JUDGMENT Mahesh Grover, J.:-The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of F.I.R.No.73 dated 22.2.2002 registered under Sections 323, 218, 467,468, 471, 500, 506, 420, 120-B, 504 of the I.P.C. at Police Station, City Kaithal at the behest of respondent no.2. 2. Petitioner no.1 is District Food & Supplies Controller with Food & Supplies Department, Haryana, whereas petitioner no.2 is a retired Inspector of the same department. 3. The facts which have given rise to the controversy is that there were two firms, namely, M/S Shiva Traders, Kaithal and M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage, Kaithal. Both these firms initially belonged to the same group of persons and were having dealings with the Food & Supplies Department, Haryana. An amount of Rs.20,37,937/-was due to the department from M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage, whereas an amount of Rs.5,81,957/- was payable by the department to M/S Shiva Traders. A cheque of the amount due to M/S Shiva Traders was issued on 7.6.2001, which required the approval of petitioner no.1 and the same was sent to him. According to the petitioners, when the said cheque was put up before petitioner, no.1, he realised that an amount of Rs.20,37,937/- was due from M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage to the department and since the group of people controlling both these firms was the same, he cancelled that cheque, ostensibly for the reason that the department was to recover the outstanding dues from one of the firms. Annexure P3 is the cancellation order. The matter was thereafter referred to an Arbitrator by way of Annexure P4. A reply was submitted by respondent no.2 which is also on record as Annexure P5. A recovery notice was issued by the department to M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage to which a reply was filed on 22.2.2002. Thereafter, respondent no.2 preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, who sent it to the concerned police station for investigation and registration of a case. The complaint has been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the instant petition, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:- “1. Thereafter, respondent no.2 preferred a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, who sent it to the concerned police station for investigation and registration of a case. The complaint has been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the instant petition, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:- “1. That the complainant is a permanent resident of Kaithal has a reputed firm under the name and style of M/S Shiva Traders, Kaithal, which is running business for the last 12 years in Kaithal and accused 1 & 2 Inspector Food & Supply are having specific knowledge of law. 2. That accused No.1 by misusing his powers issued a letter no.9379 dated 3.12.2001 to the complainant firm which is contrary to law. The complainant submitted the reply to the said illegal letter/ order of the accused No.1 on 8.12.2001 through registered A.D. (copy of the said notice and reply hereto are attached herewith). 3. That in continuity of the above, accused No.1 wrote a letter/ order on 21.12.2001 vide memo No. 9929 (copy of this letter is also endorsed with this complaint). 4. That after receiving the letter dated 21.12.2001, the complainant tried to meet the accused No.1 at his office to clarify the whole position along with some respectable persons, but the accused No.1 did not allow the complainant along with others to enter the office and in a loud voice stated “get out” with threatening the complainant to spoil his life and business and otherwise also. 5. That the complainant have instituted a civil suit against some Government department out of which the accused No.1 is one of the defendant on 28.1.2002 for securing some lawful relief. 6. That the accused after receiving of the summons of civil suit, they became more annoyed, tried to entangle the complainant and family members on one pretext or the others during the course of business and also tried to cheat the complainant under the garb of unlawful demands, which the complainant cannot fulfill. 7. That prior to this incident, the accused No.1 causing wrongful loss to the complainant and with a motive to gain something under pressure detained the amount of cheque No.144638 dated 7.6.2001, which was duly prepared due verification and formalities of the department. 8. 7. That prior to this incident, the accused No.1 causing wrongful loss to the complainant and with a motive to gain something under pressure detained the amount of cheque No.144638 dated 7.6.2001, which was duly prepared due verification and formalities of the department. 8. That not only this, the accused came to the premises of the complainant and gave threatens to the complainant with dire consequences of the complaint, will take action against them in the course of law on 8.2.2002 and also used of mother and sister, hence, this complaint. 9. That the accused have committed an offence u/s 323, 218, 467, 468, 471, 500, 506, 420, 120-B, 504 IPC as the accused used the abusing language, insulted and defame the complainant by issuing forged order/ letter, which are contrary to law, besides mental torture within the area of police station City Kaithal. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may kindly be summoned and punished accordingly for the ends of justice.” 4. On the basis of the above quoted complaint, the F.I.R. in question was registered and the petitioners are facing the proceedings pursuant thereto. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended with reference to the facts which have been detailed above, that the present F.I.R. is completely an abuse of the process of law. He submitted that the amount of Rs.20,37,937/- was due to the department from M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage and petitioner no.1 was very well within his right to stall the payment of the cheque issued in the name of M/S Shiva Traders because both these firms were controlled by the same group of persons of one family. It is, thus, his contention that the intention of petitioner no.1, at best, was to secure the interest of the department and he did not act on account of any malice or animosity. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that a perusal of the complaint does not reveal the commission of any offence and even if the cheque was stalled, then it could, at best, be taken to have given rise to a dispute which could be civil in nature and the proceedings of arbitration had appropriately been initiated by the complainant. He argued that by any stretch of imagination, no criminal liability was attracted towards the petitioners. 6. He argued that by any stretch of imagination, no criminal liability was attracted towards the petitioners. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has contended that it was malicious move on the part of the petitioners to have cancelled the cheque issued to M/S Shiva Traders and that petitioner no.1 has caused wrongful loss to the complainant with a motive to gain something under pressure and detained the cheque in question. 7. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the entire material which has been placed on record. 8. A reading of the complaint that has been made and reproduced above, on the basis of which the instant F.I.R. has been registered, reveals that it does not disclose commission of any offence. The F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 323, 218, 467, 471, 500, 506, 420,, 120-B, 504 of the I.P.C., but, in my opinion, none of the offences punishable under these provisions of law are made out even if the entire allegations contained in the complaint are taken to be correct. That apart, concededly, the complainant had business transactions with the Food & Supplies Department, Haryana of which the petitioners were the officials. It is also not in dispute that arbitration proceedings were initiated regarding the cheque in question. Since the dispute has occurred primarily on account of the withholding of the cheque of which petitioner no.1 was duly authorised either to clear it or reject it for the reason that he was officially empowered to do so, I am of the considered opinion that the present complaint/ F.I.R. is clearly an abuse of the process of law. The complainant has obviously tried to inject criminal element into a dispute which is purely of civil nature. 9. The Court also views the matter in a perspective that it is an attempt to overawe the officials of the government to prevent them from discharging their duties by invoking the criminal process without any basis. 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The F.I.R. in question and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 11. 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The F.I.R. in question and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. 11. Since the complainant has set into motion the criminal law without there being any basis for it and had subjected the officials of the department to the rigours of the prosecution, he is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/-as costs, which shall be deposited by him with the trial Court within one month from today and shall be paid to the petitioners in equal share as a measure of compensation to them. A report with regard to the deposit of the amount of costs by the complainant shall be submitted by the trial Court within a period of fifteen days thereafter. ---------------