Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 481 (JHR)

Manohar Prasad Bhadani v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-29

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT In this application, petitioners pray for quashing of FIR in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 274 of 2001 dated 13.07.2001 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-8 and 379 of the IPC. 2. It is alleged that petitioner No. 1 being a shareholder of M/s. Chattu Ram Horil Ram Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as 'Company') sold a portion of land pertaining to khata No. 322 knowingly that he had no power to sell aforesaid land. It is alleged that by doing so petitioner No. 1 put 'ass to the Company. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made in the first information report do not constitute any offence. It is submitted that for the same land a title suit is pending between the parties, which' shows that ownership of the lands in question is in dispute. Accordingly, it is prayed that the FIR be quashed. 4. On the other hand. Sri Srijit Choudhary. G.A. submits that in the first information report there is allegation that petitioner No.1 was knowing that the land belongs to the Company and has no power to sell it, but inspite that he sold the land and by doing so. cause loss to the Company. Thus, the offence of cheating is made out against the petitioner No.1. He submits that it is well settled that even if a title suit is pending criminal proceeding cannot be quashed because procedure of both the proceeding are different. 5. Having heard the submissions. I have gone through the record of the case. In the FIR there is specific allegation that Manohar Prasad Bhadani (petitioner No.1) is only a shareholder of the Company and being a shareholder, he sold land of Company though the shareholders have no power to sell it. It is also alleged that by doing so petitioner No. 1 cheated the Company. It is further alleged that petitioner No. 1 in connivance of vendee (petitioner No.2) and deed writer (petitioner No.3) committed aforesaid crime. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that prima facie offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. 6. Next contention, raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations constitute only a civil liability, therefore criminal proceeding be quashed does not inspire confidence. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that prima facie offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out against the petitioners. 6. Next contention, raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations constitute only a civil liability, therefore criminal proceeding be quashed does not inspire confidence. It has been held by their lordships of Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation v. N.E.P.C. India Ltd. and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 that even if the allegations made in the FIR constitute both criminal and civil liability, then only on that ground criminal proceeding cannot be quashed. Paragraph No. 12 (v) of the aforesaid judgment runs as follows :- (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civi1 wrong; (b) purely a criminal offence; (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart form furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law. may also involve a criminal offence, As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a, criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial, transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has, been availed, is not be itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances. I find no merit in this case. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned immediately. Petition dismissed.