Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hukam Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 5 January, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-52255 of 2006
Date of Decision:05.01.2012
Hukam Singh and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Sukhminder Singh Nara, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
Mr.S.P.Chahar, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral) As strange as it may appear, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the complainants, to settle their score(civil dispute) by filing the false criminal complaints against the accused, is increasing day-by-day in our society mounting number of pending cases in the Courts. The instant case is a burning example of such like cases.
2. The contour of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the present petition and emanating from the record is that, a Petrol Pump outlet was allotted to Bimla Yadav-complainant-respondent No.2(for brevity "the complainant"). She entered into an agreement with Hukam Singh(petitioner No.1), to jointly run the Petrol Pump and to share the profit and losses in the ratio of 51%(complainant) and 49% (petitioner No.1). She has also executed a General Power of Attorney, authorising Gabbar Singh(petitioner No.2) son of Hukam Singh, to operate all the accounts CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 2 and to complete the tax formalities etc. She has sworn an affidavit on 25.11.2002 before the Executive Magistrate, Jhajjar, in this regard.
3. During the course of business, some differences of accounts erupted and settled between the parties. Consequently, the complainant issued two account payee cheques to the petitioners, to discharge her legal liability in this respect, which were dishonoured and the petitioners filed criminal complaints against her under Sections 138 and 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
4. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a criminal case against the petitioners, inter alia, alleging therein that they(petitioners) have illegally detained, threatened and obtained her signatures on some blank papers, in regard to the operation of the Petrol Pump. They were stated to have removed certain documents, generator-set and almirah from the premises of the Petrol Pump and did not account for the sale proceeds of two days. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-Bimla Yadav, a criminal case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.11 dated 18.01.2006(Annexure P-1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 342, 467, 468, 471/34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.
5. Aggrieved by the registration of the criminal case, the petitioners preferred the present petition, for quashing the FIR(Annexure P-1), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., inter alia, pleading that they have been falsely implicated and, in any case, the allegations in the FIR involves purely a civil liability. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to petitioner No.1 that, he had paid an amount of `6,30,000/- to the complainant, after selling his agricultural land in the wake of her request, in lieu of his share to the extent of 49%, in pursuance of Deed of Agreement. She (complainant) herself settled the accounts and issued account payee cheques, CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 3 which were dishonoured and the FIR was stated to have been lodged against them as a counter-blast to the criminal complaints against her under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners sought to quash the FIR(Annexure P-1), in the manner indicated hereinabove.
6. The complainant-respondent refuted the prayer of the petitioners and filed the reply, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition and locus standi of the petitioners. It was claimed that the petitioners have committed the offence and a criminal case was rightly registered against them by virtue of impugned FIR(Annexure P-1). Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say, that the complainant has reiterated all the allegations contained in the FIR. However, it will not be out of place to mention here that she has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
8. As is evident from the record that, a Petrol Pump outlet was allotted to complainant-Bimla Yadav. She could not arrange sufficient money required to run the Petrol Pump and requested petitioner No.1, to operate it(Petrol Pump). Consequently, she executed a Deed of Agreement(Annexure P-2), by means of which, they mutually agreed to operate the Petrol Pump, styled as M/s Shivam Filling Station and to share profit and losses to the extent of 51%(complainant) and 49%(petitioner No.1). Petitioner No.1 contributed an amount of `6,30,000/- after selling his agricultural land. She(complainant) executed a General Power of Attorney dated 22.11.2002(Annexure P-3) as well in favour of Gabbar Singh (petitioner No.2) son of Hukam Singh, to run the affairs of the Petrol Pump. She has also sworn an affidavit(Annexure P-4) on 25.11.2002 before the Executive Magistrate, Jhajjar, which is to the following effect:-
CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 4
"I, Bimla Yadav d/o Late Shri Jagmal Singh r/o VPO Nilaheri, Tehsil & District Jhajjar, Prop. M/s Shivam Filling Station, Badli, Distt.Jhajjar, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-
1. I have entered into the partnership with Ch.Hukam Singh son of Sh.Narain Singh, R/o Rly. Stn., Kosli, Tehsil Kosli, Distt. Rewari, for running the business of the Petrol-Pump at Badli, Distt. Jhajjar in Haryana State.
2. That in the said business my share will be 51% and 49% share will be of Ch.Hukam Singh.
3. That I have also entered into a agreement with Ch.Hukam Singh for appointment of arbitrator to resolve any type of dispute which may arises in future in running of the said Petrol Pump in partnership.
4. That I have authorised Sh.Gabbar Singh s/o Sh.Hukam Singh to do all acts, deeds and sign any document on my behalf for the proper performance of the business of the firm known as M/s Shivam Filling Station at Badli. I will not interfere myself in the running of the business."
9. In this manner, in pursuance of the Deed of Agreement(Annexure P-2) and the General Power of Attorney(Annexure P-3), the petitioners were running the Petrol Pump. Some disputes of accounts erupted and were settled between the parties. The complainant herself issued two account payee cheques, one cheque(Annexure P-5) in favour of petitioner No.1 and the other cheque (Annexure P-6) in favour of petitioner No.2, to settle her liability. The petitioners presented the cheques to the bank on 17.12.2005, but the same were dis-honoured on account of "Insufficient Funds".
10. Faced with the situation, the petitioners filed the criminal complaints (Annexures P-7 and P-8) against M/s Shivam Filling Station and the complainant, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act.
11. Instead of paying the amount of their(petitioners) shares, after herself settling the accounts/disputes, the complainant lodged the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) against them under Sections 406, 420, 342, 467, 468, 471/34 IPC. The complainant appears to have lodged a false criminal case against them without any tangible basis, in order to wreck vengeance and to put undue pressure to CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 5 withdraw the complaints filed by them, which is not legally permissible.
12. Moreover, the complainant in order to allege the criminal offence, was required to indicate that the accused had fraudulent and dishonest intention of forgery and cheating at any time. The same is miserably lacking in the case in hand. On the contrary, it was the complainant, who executed the Deed of Agreement(Annexure P-2) and the General Power of Attorney(Annexure P-3) in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of culpable intention, it cannot possibly be saith, in any manner, that the petitioners have committed the breach of trust, cheated the complainant or forged the documents, or committed any offence, as alleged against them, in view of the provisions of Sections 40, 52, 79 and 80 of the IPC.
13. There is another aspect of the matter which can be viewed from a different angle. If the matrix of the contents of the impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) is perused and put together, then it give rise purely to a civil dispute. The complainant pleaded that the petitioners did not account for the payment of sale proceeds of petrol & diesel on 14 and 15.12.2005. If there was any discrepancy in the statement of accounts, then the complainant ought to have filed a civil suit for rendition of accounts against the petitioners, instead of dragging them in criminal prosecution and she cannot legally be permitted to file the FIR. It is now well- recognized principle of law that the matter, which essentially involves the dispute of civil nature cannot legally be allowed to become subject matter of criminal proceeding. It is not a matter of dispute that the jurisdiction of civil and criminal courts is entirely different and distinct from each other. The matter which squarely falls only within the ambit and jurisdiction of the civil court, cannot legally be permitted to be re-agitated in parallel proceedings in the criminal court. Therefore, to me, the complainant cannot legally be again permitted to re-urge the same very dispute in the garb of criminal prosecution, by way of impugned FIR(Annexure P-1). Otherwise, there will be no end of unwarranted litigation and it will CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 6 inculcate and perpetuate injustice to the petitioners in this relevant behalf.
14. An identical question came to be decided in case Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Others (2006)6 SCC 736 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned about a growing tendency of the people to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases and noticed the prevalent impression that since the civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors, so, the people have started to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying the pressure through criminal prosecution. It was observed that "such effort should be deprecated and discouraged. The same view was taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Inder Mohan Goswami & Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others 2008(1) SCC(Crl.) 259, wherein it was held that the veracity of the facts alleged by the complainant can only be ascertained on the basis of evidence and documents by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and if the dispute in question is purely of a civil nature, in that eventuality, the initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant against the accused is clearly an abuse of process of the Court.
15. Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Joseph Salvaraja v. State of Gujarat and others (2011) 3 SCC(Crl.) 23, in which, it was ruled as under:-
"In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been succinctly held by this Court in Devendra v. State of U.P., (2009) 7 SCC 495, in which, it was held (para
27) that a distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a person to be harassed CRM No.M-52255 of 2006 7 although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out."
16. Sequelly, the contrary submissions of the counsel for the complainant-respondent "stricto sensu" deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances and the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
17. In this view of the matter, lodging of the FIR by the complainant against the petitioners, is a sheer and grave misuse/abuse of process of law, which is not legally permissible. Therefore, to me, FIR(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
18. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
19. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. The impugned FIR(Annexure P-1) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. Consequently, the petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated offences.
January 05, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
seema JUDGE
Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No