Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 555 (JHR)

Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2024-06-11

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. The notice was issued upon the O.P.No.2 and the notice has been served upon the son of the O.P.No.2 who is working in the same shop of the O.P.No.2. As such, notice upon the O.P.No.2 has been deemed to be validly served and the same was served in the year 2017 itself and till date, nobody has appeared on behalf of the O.P.No.2. In view of that, this petition is being heard in absence of the O.P.No.2 on merit. 2. Heard Mr. L.C.N.Shahdeo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 3. The prayer in this petition has been made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.09.2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.605 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. 4. The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the respondent no.2 applied for distributorship of the company’s milk products and submitted his details to the Sales Manager of the company Rajnish Kumar (accused no.3) at the local office of the company, situated at Plot No.79/C-1 and C-2, Kamre, near Sahu Cold Storage, Ranchi-Lohardaga Road, Ranchi which was approved by him on 12.12.2014, whereby the respondent no.2/complainant became the distributor of the petitioner company. The respondent no.2/complainant is a cheat himself and after having sold all the products taken by him from the company, he in order to earn wrongful gain and to extort money from the petitioners by blackmailing them through the instant complaint lodged it on the following allegations: That sometimes in the month of December, 2014 the petitioner no.2 who is the Director of the company and accused no.3 who is the sales manager of the company arrayed as petitioner no.1 came to Jamshedpur and after having introduced themselves told the complainant that they are looking for retailers to sell Kasheer Dairy Creamer and impressed upon the complainant to store, market and sell the said product. That the complainant stated that he was not interested in the particular product since it was new and untested in the market whereupon the petitioner no.2 and accused no.3 assured the complainant that they would provide adequate salesman to promote the marketing of the product and on such assurance the complainant placed an order for 109 boxes of the product costing Rs.2,73,947.52/-. That the aforesaid material was supplied to the complainant in the month of January, 2015 the cost of which was paid by the complainant. The shelf life of the product was 12 months only. That time and again the complainant requested and pleaded the petitioners to depute their salesman for promoting the product but the petitioners willfully and deliberately neglected and failed to provide the sales man and support staff as promised. In short, it is alleged that there was deficiency of service on behalf of the petitioners as they promised. That the petitioners induced the complainant by playing deceit and sold the product to the complainant having no intention to provide any salesman and support staff and thereby the petitioners have cheated the complainant and acted in breach of the implied legal contract and caused wrongful losses to the complainant and wrongful gains for themselves. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having its registered office at 1711 S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi and has pan-India presence and the petitioner no.2 is Vice-Chairman of the said Company and there are several other Directors of various Departments, like, Finance and Marketing, etc. of the company. The said Company is engaged in manufacturing packaged food products, that is, dairy products, packaged drinking water, soft drinks, etc. The petitioner-company is having a good reputation in Indian market. The company has established its depot in Ranchi. He submits that the O.P.No.2 has applied for Distributorship of the Company for milk products and has submitted its details to the Area Sales Manager of the Company who is accused no.3 at the local area of the company situated at Kamre, Ranchi which was approved by the said Area Sales Manager on 12.12.2014. He submits that the allegations are made that the petitioner-company has not provided sales persons for selling the dairy products of the petitioner-company. He submits that the allegations are made that the petitioner-company has not provided sales persons for selling the dairy products of the petitioner-company. He submits that thrice order was made by the complainant and milk product was supplied and for the first order also nothing was paid to the company and further three orders were made by the O.P.No.2 which was made available and the petitioner-company was not paid for all these transactions, however, false allegations were made that the petitioner-company has not paid Rs.2,73,947.52. He submits that the petitioner-company itself is a sufferer with a motive not to pay the amount to the company and maliciously the present complaint case has been filed. He submits that if any case is made out, that is of civil in nature and for which criminal case has been lodged. He submits that the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 6. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that the case is arising out of complaint case and pursuant to that, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. 7. The Court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition as well as the other documents including the application for allotment of the Distributorship of the said dairy product of the petitioner- company. In the complaint petition itself it is stated that the petitioner- company has supplied the dairy product to the O.P.No.2. After exhausting the stock of the first order, subsequently three orders were placed by the O.P.No.2. It was pointed out that nothing was paid to the company and the company itself owed amount from the O.P.No.2 and it was disclosed that for the rest three orders, nothing was paid to the company. In these backgrounds, prima facie, it appears that the case is arising out of business transactions and if any case is there, that is civil in nature and for that the criminal case has been lodged. The subsequent orders placed by the O.P.no.2 has also been brought on record which are dated 31.01.2015, 11.02.2015 and 13.04.2015, by way of Annexure -4. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner–company has agreed to provide sales-persons to the O.P.No.2 for selling the dairy products of the petitioner-company. The subsequent orders placed by the O.P.no.2 has also been brought on record which are dated 31.01.2015, 11.02.2015 and 13.04.2015, by way of Annexure -4. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner–company has agreed to provide sales-persons to the O.P.No.2 for selling the dairy products of the petitioner-company. Thus, it appears that maliciously the present case has been lodged against the company and the officer of the said company. Further, it is strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for recovery of the money except filing of the present criminal complaint and this action appears to be mala-fide and unsustainable. There is growing trend in the business circle of converting the civil disputes into the criminal cases. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, reported in 1992 (Supp.) 1 SCC 335, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set out categories in which inherent powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised. Out of which, the first, third and firth category as set out therein are as follows: (1) Where the allegations made in the first informant report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, (2) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused; and (3) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 8. The present case falls under these three categories. The prosecution is mala-fide, untenable and solely intended to harass the petitioners. In such a situation, the High Court is required to exercise the power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 9. In view of those above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow the present proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.09.2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.605 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are quashed. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 27.09.2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.605 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are quashed. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. 12. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.