Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 327 (RAJ)

Bhagwan Garg v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-29

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioner Bhagwan Garg has preferred misc. petition No.1121/2010 with a prayer of quashing the FIR No. 205/10 dated 07.05.2010 Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar qua the petitioner. 2. Shiv Ratan Goyal and Sunil Goel have preferred misc. petition No.1120/2010 with a similar prayer. 3. As both the misc. petitions seek quashing of FIR No.205/10, both the misc. petitions are being decided by this common order. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a franchisee agreement took place between Richlook Garment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Suzata Collection, a Partnership firm of which Archana Garg was a partner on 01.05.2007. The franchisee breached certain terms and conditions of the franchisee agreement on which warning letters were issued by the company to the franchisee on 01.05.2008 and 20.09.2008. The franchisee also disconnected the broadband connection as a result of which the company could not control the stock belonging to the company. 5. It is contended that Archana Garg, partner of M/s. Suzata Collection filed an FIR on 17.09.2009 claiming for refund of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) security amount and return of 05 cheques. Police after due investigation submitted a negative final report upon which the present FIR was lodged by the husband of Archana Garg. 6. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for Bhagwan Garg that Bhagwan Garg was the sole arbitrator as per the franchisee agreement entered into between the company and M/s. Suzata Collection. He started the arbitration proceedings on 09.02.2010 in which appearance was put on behalf of the franchisee and power was filed. Thereafter, Bhagwan Garg withdrew from the arbitration proceedings and second arbitrator was appointed. 7. It is contended that Bhagwan Garg has no role whatsoever and there is no allegation whatsoever against him. He just started arbitration proceeding and had not proceeded with the arbitration. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Director of M/s. Richlook Garment Private Limited and its CFO contends that Police submitted negative report in the FIR which was filed by the partner of the franchisee. Husband of franchisee has no locus standi to file the second FIR. The allegations in the first FIR and the second FIR are almost similar, the only exception is that the arbitrator and CFO have also been made accused in the second FIR filed by the husband. 9. Husband of franchisee has no locus standi to file the second FIR. The allegations in the first FIR and the second FIR are almost similar, the only exception is that the arbitrator and CFO have also been made accused in the second FIR filed by the husband. 9. It is contended that the matter is a civil dispute. Parties have entered into a franchisee agreement. As per the agreement, in case of any dispute between the parties, the same is to be referred to an arbitrator. It is also argued that arbitrator have already passed the award. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandran Ratnaswami Vs. KC Palanisamy, (2013) AIRSCW 2918, where the Apex Court held that where the dispute is of civil nature allowing the criminal proceeding to be continued would be abuse of power of the Court. Reliance is also placed on in International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and Others Vs. Nirma Cerglass Technics Private Limited and Another, (2016) 1 SCC(Cri) 269 wherein the Apex Court held that if the dispute is purely of a civil nature, civil liability cannot be converted to criminal liability. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the misc. petitions. It is contended that the first FIR did not cover the allegations which were leveled against the arbitrator and the CFO and two conspiracies cannot be said to be identical. Reliance is placed on the judgment in Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) AIR SC 1791. Reliance is also placed on Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal, (1999) AIR SC 3499, wherein the Apex Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed merely because arbitration is a remedy for affording relief to the party. Reliance is also placed on Manak Chand Vs. State and others, (1998) CriLJ 1950 RAJ, wherein all the complaints were filed in respect of same offences. Second complaint was containing additional allegations which were not in the first one. The High Court held that registration of second FIR by Police does not amount to abuse of process of law. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence hence Police is entitled to proceed with the investigation. 13. I have considered the contention and perused the record. 14. The High Court held that registration of second FIR by Police does not amount to abuse of process of law. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence hence Police is entitled to proceed with the investigation. 13. I have considered the contention and perused the record. 14. The present is a case where a franchisee agreement was entered into between the franchisee and the company. One of the partner of the franchisee happens to be wife of the complainant. Complainant as such has no locus standi as he is neither a partner of the franchisee firm nor is he having any control over the business of the franchisee firm. It is further pertinent to note that partner of M/s. Suzata Collection who is wife of the present complainant lodged FIR on 17.09.2019 in which Police submitted negative FIR considering the matter to be of civil nature, when complainant's wife did not succeed in her FIR, the present FIR was lodged by the husband of the partner raising additional ground against the arbitrator. 15. It is true that any one can approach the Police if an offence is committed but admittedly in the present case an agreement was entered into between the company and the franchisee, certain letters were issued by the company pointing out to the breach committed by the franchisee and the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator as per Clause 23 of the agreement. The dispute is a civil dispute and after negative final report was submitted by the Police in the FIR filed by the partner, there is no justification for permitting the Police to investigate the matter which has been referred to arbitrator and award has been passed by the arbitrator. There is no justification in permitting investigation in the FIR filed by husband of a partner when partner has already filed an FIR leveling allegations which are almost akin to the FIR now lodged by the husband of the partner. 16. Dispute being a civil dispute and award having been passed proceeding on FIR lodged by a person who has no locus standi would amount to abuse of process of Court more particularly when in the FIR filed by partner police has submitted negative final report. 17. In view of the same, the misc. petitions are allowed. 16. Dispute being a civil dispute and award having been passed proceeding on FIR lodged by a person who has no locus standi would amount to abuse of process of Court more particularly when in the FIR filed by partner police has submitted negative final report. 17. In view of the same, the misc. petitions are allowed. The FIR No.205/2010 is quashed qua Bhagwan Garg, Shivratan Goyal and Sunil Goel.