Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 438 (UTT)

HARINDER RAJ MATTA v. AMAR RAJA BATTERIES

2015-09-09

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Ishaan Madan, Advocate, for the applicant. 2. Mr. Shailendra Singh, Advocate, with Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate, for the respondent no.s 1, 2, 3 and 7. 3. Mr. Mohd. Zafar Ulla Siddiqui, Advocate, for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. 4. Mr. P.S. Saun, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State/respondent no. 9. 5. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC has been invoked by the applicant in the present case. What is under challenge before this Court is order dated 07.07.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar by which he has allowed the criminal revision filed on behalf of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 against the summoning order dated 12.12.2013 of the learned Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar in a criminal complaint moved by the present applicant. Now the validity of these two orders i.e. the summoning order of the learned Magistrate dated 12.12.2013 and the order dated of the revisional court dated 07.07.2014 have to be examined by this Court. 6. As there is a protracted litigation between the applicant on one hand and the respondents on the other, it would be worthwhile to narrate the facts which have led to the filing of the present application under Section 482 CrPC before this Court. 7. The applicant had entered into an agreement on behalf of a Company IRC India Limited with one Amar Raja Batteries which has its registered office at Renigunta, Cuddapah Road, Karakambadi, Tirupati (Andhra Pradesh). IRC India Limited here is respondent no. 4 and respondent no. 5 is the Managing Director of IRC Limited and respondent no. 6 is the Head commercial of IRC India Limited. 8. From the available documents before this Court, the contract and the subsequent correspondence between the applicant and Amar Raja Batteries were been made by the applicant as a representative or agent of IRC India Limited. At least, this would be the defence of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 and prima facie and this is what it appears as of now. 9. Nevertheless, the present applicant also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 10.04.2009 between the applicant and respondent no. 4 which he has annexed as annexure (P-2) to the present application. At least, this would be the defence of respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 and prima facie and this is what it appears as of now. 9. Nevertheless, the present applicant also refers to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 10.04.2009 between the applicant and respondent no. 4 which he has annexed as annexure (P-2) to the present application. However, from the orders of the revisional court as well as from the perusal of the annexure, the original copy of this MOU has not been produced before any court, and it appears that the applicant does not have the original copy of this so called MOU. The entire case of the present applicant also rests on this MOU, or rather on the veracity of this MOU. 10. Be that as it may, a first information report dated 03.03.2010 was filed by the present applicant against all the present respondents which was registered as FIR No. 29 of 2010 at Police Station Pant Nagar, Rudrapur, District- Udham Singh Nagar under Sections 406/420 IPC. After investigation police filed its charge sheet only under Section 406 IPC on which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons were issued. Feeling aggrieved, Mr. Ramanathan Natarajan (respondent no. 8) and others invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC stating that cognizance has wrongly been taken as no case is made out against them. The learned Single Judge of this Court heard the said case and allowed the C-482 Application No. 486 of 2012 and the charge sheet and the proceedings were quashed vide order dated 16.10.2012. The present applicant, thereafter, moved the Hon’ble Apex Court. With certain observations the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 29.08.2013, is reproduced as under:- “Heard the petitioner appearing in person and Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. By the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondents for the offence under Section 406 IPC. We find that no offence under Section 406 IPC has been made out against the respondents as there was no endorsement of property by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner, however, submits that there has been a case of cheating, hence, the respondents are is liable to be proceeded under Section 420 IPC. We find that no offence under Section 406 IPC has been made out against the respondents as there was no endorsement of property by the petitioner to the respondents. The petitioner, however, submits that there has been a case of cheating, hence, the respondents are is liable to be proceeded under Section 420 IPC. If that be so, it will be open for the petitioner to move the appropriate Court and if such a complaint is moved, the same be decided in accordance with law. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.” 11. Since the Hon’ble Apex Court had left some scope for the present applicant to file a complaint as regarding the alleged offence of cheating, the applicant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar alleging offence under Section 420 IPC, against all the respondents. 12. The applicant was examined under Section 200 CrPC. However, there was no enquiry done by the court as contemplated under Section 202 (1) of CrPC, considering the fact that the accused in the complaint are admittedly residing at different places all of which are beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The respondents are residents of either Andhra Pradesh or New Delhi. Clearly they reside in an area which is beyond the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. 13. Nevertheless, as the learned Magistrate’s order dated 12.12.2013 suggests that under Section 202 CrPC, he had examined the MOU dated 10.04.2009 (on which such a heavy reliance is being placed by the present applicant), certain e-mails etc, and has come to the conclusion that prima facie, a case is made out against the accused persons and summons have been issued to them. This order dated 12.12.2013 was challenged in revision by the respondents namely Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta and Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta. The order of the revisional court dated 07.07.2014 has been perused. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Ishaan Madan is that learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar while deciding the revision, has exceeded its jurisdiction and has also examined the merits of the case, including the defence of the accused persons which was not liable to be examined at the stage of issue of summons. The principal argument of the learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Ishaan Madan is that learned Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar while deciding the revision, has exceeded its jurisdiction and has also examined the merits of the case, including the defence of the accused persons which was not liable to be examined at the stage of issue of summons. The learned revisional court though has set aside the summoning order dated 12.12.2013 but has remanded back the matter to the learned Magistrate with directions to examine the matter once again in the light of the observations given by him. 14. In the light of the observations would mean also the defence taken by the accused persons in the revision, which cannot be considered by the trial court at the stage of issue of summons, as an accused has absolutely no locus standi before the court below at the stage of issue of summons. 15. The learned Sessions Judge should have therefore, confined himself to the parameters given under Sections 200/202 CrPC and should have examined in that light only the validity of the summoning order dated 12.12.2013. This has apparently not been done. Therefore, this Court finds that both the orders dated 12.12.2013 as well as the order of the revisional court dated 07.07.2014 suffer from one or the other anomaly. 16. Though the order of the revisional court only remands the matter before the learned Magistrate for reappraisal and to that extent no interference is called for. All the same, the learned Magistrate shall only examine the matter afresh in the light of the parameters given in Sections 200/202 of CrPC, keeping in mind that the accused resides in an area outside his jurisdiction. That part of the order of the revisional court which directs the learned Magistrate to conclude the matter in the light of what has been observed by him shall not be considered by the learned Magistrate. 17. It shall be considered by the learned Magistrate that all the accused persons reside in an area which is outside his jurisdiction, as they are residents of either Delhi or Andhra Pradesh. Consequently care must be taken, as the mandatory provision under Section 202 (1) regarding enquiry has now come by way of an amendment in the year 2005 (w.e.f. 23.06.2006). 18. In view of the above, the application under Section 482 CrPC stands disposed.