Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2234 (JHR)

Shiv Shankar Pradhan v. State of Jharkhand

2018-10-09

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kumar Basant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 20 of 2013 including the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also challenged the various orders by which coercive steps have been directed to be taken against the petitioner. 3. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint arose out of the dispute with respect to the business transaction as it has been alleged that an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- was due to the opposite party no. 2 towards hire charges of the tractor belonging to the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel submits that by no stretch of imagination the allegation is said to constitute an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been submitted that after an oral agreement was entered into the complainant/informant himself has admitted with respect to regular payment of the hire charges of the tractor in question and subsequent non-payment even if it is assumed to be true would not make out a criminal offence against the petitioner. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Murlidhar Agarwal vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. in Cr.M.P. No. 2559 of 2012. 4. Mr. Kumar Basant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that four Cheques which were issued by the petitioner towards the dues of the opposite party no. 2 has subsequently got dishonoured and the same itself constitutes an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been stated that a threatening was also meted out by the petitioner on 14.4.2013 and the entire act of the petitioner as alleged by the opposite party no. 2 was found to be true in course of investigation leading to submission of charge-sheet under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, prays that the present application be dismissed. 2 was found to be true in course of investigation leading to submission of charge-sheet under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He, therefore, prays that the present application be dismissed. 5. On consideration of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties the complaint petition which was initially instituted was visited from which it appears that the opposite party no. 2 was the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. JH 05R 9819 and trailer bearing Registration No. JH 05P 9994. 6. It has been alleged that the opposite party no. 2 was approached by the petitioner to ply the tractor and the trailer by him on hire which proposal was accepted by the opposite party no. 2 and subsequent thereto the tractor and trailer of the opposite party no. 2 were handed over to the petitioner. It has been stated in the complaint petition that till February, 2011 the hire charges has been regularly paid by the petitioner but subsequent thereto he defaulted and ultimately an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- was due from the petitioner for which four cheques were issued by the petitioner which also got dishonoured. It has further been alleged that a threatening was issued to the opposite party no. 2 which resulted in initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The opposite party no. 2 was also threatened not to report the matter to the police on 14.4.2013 as the opposite party no. 2 was approached by the petitioner and several anti-social elements for such act. 7. The complaint case on being sent to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. resulted in institution of Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 20 of 2013 in which after investigation charge-sheet was submitted leading to taking of cognizance under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila vide order dated 25.2.2014 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present application apart from the other prayers made by the petitioner with respect to the coercive steps which has been ordered to be taken against him. 8. The subject matter of a criminal case instituted by the opposite party no. 2 as could be deciphered from the complaint petition instituted is with respect to a business transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 8. The subject matter of a criminal case instituted by the opposite party no. 2 as could be deciphered from the complaint petition instituted is with respect to a business transaction between the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 and on account of non-payment of the hire charges of the tractor, the complaint case was instituted. It also appears from the complaint petition that the tractor was returned back to the opposite party no. 2. So far as the purported cheques which were issued by the petitioner is concerned merely a fleeting reference has been given to the same in the complaint petition and nothing of substance has been brought on record either by way of a counter affidavit or in the complaint petition which would suggest that some cheques were issued by the petitioner. Even if it is assumed what has been stated by the complainant to be true the same also does not make out a case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. It appears to be an admitted fact that at the initial stage of the transaction the petitioner was regularly making payment of the rental charges of the tractor till February, 2011 but subsequently he defaulted and it has been claimed that an amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- was due from the petitioner till the time the tractor was taken away by the opposite party no. 2. Thus it is assumed that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception of the transaction in view of the fact that the initial terms and conditions of the agreement was clinically adhered to by the petitioner which has been stated so by the opposite party no. 2. 10. In the case of Murlidhar Agarwal vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. which also related to a business transaction and non-payment of the dues to the informant on consideration of the ingredients of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code it was held that the case was entirely a civil dispute as there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception of such transaction. 11. As has been stated above, the opposite party no. 2 has an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance with respect to the non-payment of hire charges of the tractor and trailer. 11. As has been stated above, the opposite party no. 2 has an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance with respect to the non-payment of hire charges of the tractor and trailer. It is manifest that the opposite party no. 2 had chosen a wrong forum without there being any ingredient of the offence being made out for prosecuting the petitioner under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the purported threatening which has been given by the petitioner to the opposite party no. 2 is concerned as per to the own saying of the opposite party no. 2 that a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was initiated at his behest. Therefore, the complaint petition primarily was concentrated itself on the non-payment of Rs. 1,98,000/- from the petitioner which was the dues towards the hire charges on plying of the tractor and trailer and as has been noted above such dispute can invite a civil consequence but by no stretch of imagination a criminal prosecution can lie against the petitioner. 12. In the totality of the circumstance enumerated above, therefore, I find sufficient force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application stands allowed and the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhalbhumgarh P.S. Case No. 20 of 2013 including the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the learned ACJM, Ghatsila by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 13. Pending interlocutory applications stands disposed of.