Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1541 (JHR)

S. K. Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand

2017-08-29

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard the parties. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2015 including the order dated 19.7.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the entire dispute is civil in nature as the same arises out of a contract. It has further been submitted that O.P. No. 2 had suppressed the fact that the order passed by the District Consumer Forum was set aside by the appellate forum. It has also been submitted that petitioner is the Superintendent of RIMS and there cannot be said to be any act of criminality on the part of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submits that ingredients of cheating are not present as there was never any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception of the transaction and therefore entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 on the other hand has referred to the counter affidavit and has submitted that in spite of depositing an amount of Rs. 12,86,786.00, scraps/waste materials of all the departments were not handed over by the petitioner to the O.P. No. 2 and therefore such act can be said to be an act of cheating on the part of the petitioner in terms of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Prosecution story in short is that the O.P. No. 2 is engaged in purchase and sale of waste materials. It has been alleged that the offer of the complainant for purchase of waste articles of 33 departments of RIMS was accepted at a total price of Rs. 12,86,786.00. The complainant was directed to deposit the full price through a demand draft before RIMS. Pursuant to the said direction, complainant deposited the said amount on 5.6.2012 in the office of RIMS. It is alleged that the authorities had asked the complainant to receive the waste articles within two months but since some of the departments remained busy, entire waste materials were not received by the complainant. Pursuant to the said direction, complainant deposited the said amount on 5.6.2012 in the office of RIMS. It is alleged that the authorities had asked the complainant to receive the waste articles within two months but since some of the departments remained busy, entire waste materials were not received by the complainant. It is further alleged that a request was also made to issue necessary directions but in spite of the same, no efforts were taken by the petitioner which ultimately led the O.P. No. 2 to file a case before the District Consumer Forum, in which a direction was given to supply all the materials. Further allegation has been levelled that in spite of the said direction, articles were not supplied and ultimately the O.P. No. 2 was constrained to file a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2015. Upon conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 5. It appears that District Consumer Forum had passed an order in favour of O.P. No. 2, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.C. No. 6472 of 2014, which was disposed of on 3.2.2015 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi within a period of four weeks and if the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, the same shall be decided on its merits. Petitioner accordingly had preferred an appeal, which was disposed of on 8.12.2015 and the same was allowed and the complaint was dismissed as not maintainable under, the Consumer Protection Act. 6. Reverting back to the allegations levelled in the complaint petition, same seems to be with respect to the complainant not being handed over the waste articles as agreed upon, for which the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 12,86,786.00. The dispute as it seems is entirely civil in nature as there does not appear to be any criminality in the act of the petitioner. There also does not appear any dishonest intention from the very inception on the part of the petitioner so as to attract an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC. O.P. No. 2 before instituting the complaint case had already availed his remedy before the Consumer Forum, which however, was decided against him in appeal. There also does not appear any dishonest intention from the very inception on the part of the petitioner so as to attract an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC. O.P. No. 2 before instituting the complaint case had already availed his remedy before the Consumer Forum, which however, was decided against him in appeal. O.P. No. 2, therefore, in order to pressurize the petitioner to fulfill his part of the contract had instituted the complaint case. Institution of the complaint case reveals that the same is a malicious prosecution against the petitioner only to pressurize the petitioner to supply the rest part of the waste materials as agreed upon. There being no criminality on the part of the petitioner, continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of Court and would lead to miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, in view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 2316 of 2015 including the order dated 19.7.2016, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside.