Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ishwar Dayal vs Chhavi Lal on 1 March, 2016
MCRC-11124-2014
(ISHWAR DAYAL Vs CHHAVI LAL)
01-03-2016
Shri Rahul Tripathi, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.K. Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent
No.2/State.
Heard on admission.
This miscellaneous criminal case is directed against the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla in Cr.R.No.13/2013, whereby the order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the Court of JMFC, Mandla registering private complaint against the accused/petitioner Ishwar Dayal under Section 420 of the IPC, was affirmed.
The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: Respondent Chhavi Lal filed a private complaint in the Court of JMFC, Mandla to the effect that the he works as an Inspector in the P.A.C.L. company at Jabalpur. The petitioner/accused Ishwar Dayal also worked in the same company. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,86,820/- collected from the account holders of the company with the accused. However, the accused did not issue any receipt for the same. Aforesaid amount of Rs.1,86,820/- was meant to be deposited by the accused in the account of the company; however, the accused failed to do so. Instead, he entered in to a registered contract with the complainant on 28.12.2006, whereby the accused was granted time to furnish receipt of deposit of aforesaid amount in the company by 10.02.2007 but he did not do so. Thus, the petitioner/accused has misappropriated aforesaid amount.
Learned trial Court registered the private complaint by order dated 2-9-2011 under Section 420 of the Cr.P.C. but declined to register it under Sections 409, 471, 470, 468 and 506 of the IPC. The revision filed against the order dated 02.09.2011 registering the private complaint, was dismissed by impugned order dated 25.04.2014.
The impugned order has been challenged on behalf of the petitioner/accused on following two grounds:
1. Even if it is assumed that the cause of action arose from the date of execution of contract dated 28.12.2006, the cognizance of the offence is time barred as the private complaint was filed on 12.08.2010.
2. A breach of contract is a purely a civil dispute for redressal whereof, a private complaint is not maintainable.
It may be noted here that the offence under Section 420 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of 7 years. As per Section 468, no limitation has been prescribed for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding 3 years. Thus, the ground of limitation is baseless.
It is true that ordinarily the non-performance of a contract would give rise to a civil dispute; however, in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the existence of elements of the crime is also evident. The complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,86,820/- with the accused for being deposited in the company. The accused neither issued any receipt for the same nor deposited it in the account of company. On being pressurized, he executed a contract in favour of the complainant. Even after that, he did not deposit the amount in the company and furnish receipt of the same to the complainant. Thus, prima-facie, it may be presumed that from the very beginning of the transaction, he intended to defraud the complainant and convert the amount deposited by him to his own use. In aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that any abuse of process of Court or injustice is involved in the case, warranting interference by the High Court invoking powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. being devoid of substance deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE