Madras High Court
S.Shajahan @ S.S.Chakravarthy vs The State on 16 November, 2018
Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved On : 07.07.2022
Delivered On : 06.10.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021
S.Shajahan @ S.S.Chakravarthy ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1.The State
Rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
E.D.F-II, Team – IV,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2. Mrs.Anu @ Sasikala ... 2nd Respondent/De-facto
Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, to call for the records in C.C.No.5211 of 2020 on
the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB/CBCID,
Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the Petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.R.Elango,
Senior Counsel
Assisted by Mr.K.Arun Pradeesh
for M/s.AAV Partners
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021
For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl.side), for R1
Mr.S.Ravi for M/s.Gupta & Ravi for R2.
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.5211 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB/CBCID, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same as against the Petitioner.
2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted his arguments. As per his submissions, the Petitioner herein had entered into contract for production of a film of “Vettai Mannan”.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner also referred to paragraph No.7 of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2018, dated 16.11.2018, which is extracted 2/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 hereunder:-
“7. On perusal of records, it is seen that by an agreement dated 01.08.2015, this Court passed judgment and decree in C.S.No.541 of 2015, in which the petitioner assigned the exclusive the theatrical rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the movie named as “Vettai Mannan”for the State of Tamil Nadu in favour of the De-facto Complainant. It reveals from the other assignment rights agreement entered by the petitioner with other persons that 80% of the movie is completed. Even according to the said agreement dated 01.08.2015, if the petitioner drops the production of the movie “Vettaimannan” he has to pay the said sum with interest. Even after completion of three years from the year 2015, the De-facto Complainant did not take any steps to recover the same from the Petitioner. Further it is seen from the agreement dated 01.08.2015, the total consideration was fixed at Rs.12,00,00,000/-, in which a sum of Rs.7,45,00,000/- adjusted towards the theatrical rights in favour of the De-facto complainant and the balance consideration of Rs.4,55,00,000/-
to be payable by the De-facto complainant of the title of release of the movie to the petitioner. Therefore, the entire dispute is civil in nature and all the issues are to be brought on records by documentary evidence. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case. As such, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain 3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 conditions”
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the statement of the De-facto complainant/Anu @ Sasikala made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. From the said 161 statement, it is found that the shooting of the film Vettai Mannan had not at all commenced due to civil proceedings. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet filed by the First Respondent before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for Central Crime Branch, CBCID Cases arising out of Metropolitan Area, Egmore.
5. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the ingredients under Section 420 of I.P.C. is not at all attracted. In the course of the investigation, in the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it was claimed that there had been a civil dispute between the Petitioner herein and the Complainant for non production of the film. Therefore, the ingredients of offence under Section 406 of I.P.C. is also 4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 not attracted.
6. The learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C wherein all the witnesses claimed that the shooting of the film was not at all commenced. The claim of the De- facto Complainant is that the Petitioner herein has cheated her. Therefore, she preferred a complaint before the Central Crime Branch to the City Police to register a case and investigate the case. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6497 of 2019 filed by the second Respondent herein/De-facto Complainant seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail ordered to the Petitioner herein in which this Court had observed in paragraph 8 and had rightly dismissed the Petition for cancellation of anticipatory bail already granted to the Petitioner herein in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2018, dated 11.12.2018. Paragraph 8 is extracted as under:
“8.Further, when there has been a finding rendered by this Court, it is the duty of the Petitioner to satisfy this Court that the said finding was on the basis of documents, which are untrue.5/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 Mere assertion by the Petitioner that documents are forged on the basis of which bail has been granted would not be suffice to cancel the bail granted to the 2 nd Respondent. There should be deliberate non-compliance of the conditions stipulated and/or fraudulent act perpetrated before this Court for cancellation of bail and in the above circumstances, there being no deliberate non-compliance with the order passed by this Court, nor any material to show that fraud has been perpetrated on this Court, the prayer of the Petitioner herein for cancellation of bail does not merit acceptance.”
7.Also, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.1285 of 2021 [Mitesh Kumar J. Sha -vs- The State of Karnataka and Others] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Supreme Court had deprecated the practice of imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety. Wherein also the Hon’ble Supreme Court had relied on the guideline issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. As per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335:
1992 SCC (Cri) 426, the discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised sparingly.
8. The dispute in this case is civil in nature. The Respondent/ De-facto Complainant ought to have filed civil suit instead filed criminal complaint.
9. The Investigation Report filed by the Investigation Officer is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and therefore, the Petitioner seeks to quash the Charge sheet.
10. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/De-facto 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 Complainant vehemently objected to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner herein is a habitual offender. He made false promise to the De-facto Complainant and others.
11.The Petitioner with an ulterior motive to cheat the De-facto complainant, had entered into a contract and misappropriated the money. But he had not given the rights to exhibit the film to the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/De-facto Complainant relied on the statement made by one Nelson Dhilipkumar before the Police u/s 161(3) Cr.P.C, and relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
“ ehd; nkw;fz;l tpyhrj;jpy; FLk;gj;Jld; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; jpU/S.S.rf;futh;j;jp vd;gth; elj;jp tUk; M/s. NIC ARTS vd;w rpdpkh jahhpg;g[ epWtdj;jpy; jahhpf;fg;gl;l “ ntl;il kd;dd;” vd;w jpiug;glj;jpd; iluf;luhf xg;ge;jk; bra;ag;gl;L gzp g[hpe;J te;njd;/ nkw;go “ ntl;il kd;dd;” jpiug;glj;jpd; glg;gpog;g[ fle;j 2010k; Mz;L bjhl';fg;gl;lJ/ mjd; glg;gpog;g[ fle;j 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 2014k; Mz;ow;F gpwF vJt[k; eil bgwhky; ghjpapy; epd;Wtpl;lJ/ ehd; 2014?k; tUlj;jpw;F gpwF “ ntl;il kd;dd;” jpiugl glg;gpog;g[ rk;ke;jkhf ve;j xU ntiyapYk; <Lgl tpy;iy. M/s. NIC ARTS vd;w rpdpkh jahhpg;g[ epWtdj;jplkpUe;J “ ntl;il kd;dd;” jpiugl glg;gpog;g[ rk;ke;jkhf 2014?w;F gpwF ve;j gzKk; bgwtpy;iy/ jahhpg;ghsh; S.S.rf;futh;j;jpaplk; glg;gpog;g[ gw;wp nfl;Fk; nghbjy;yhk; gy;ntW fhuz';fis Twp tUfpwhh;/ “ ntl;il kd;dd;” jpiuglk; rk;ke;jkhf brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; kD vJt[k; jhf;fy;
bra;atpy;iy/ ,J rk;ke;jkhf brd;id kj;jpa
Fw;wg;gphpt[ fhty; Ma;thsh; Mfpa jh';fs; vd;id
tprhuiz bra;a ehd; ele;jij brhd;ndd;/ goj;J
ghh;j;njd; ehd; brhd;dgo cs;sJ/”
12. On a perusal of the statement made u/s 161 Cr.P.C and complaint preferred by the De-facto Complainant, prima facie case is made out and the possibility of acquittal or conviction cannot be a valid ground for quashing the F.I.R. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent that what are all argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are to be considered as valuable defence of the Accused to be considered by the 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 trial Court while appreciating evidence and should not be considered by this Court exercising the extraordinary powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.
13.The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent/ De-facto Complainant invited the attention of this Court to the typed set furnished by the Respondents. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent that the Petitioner herein had placed documents and the film vouchers, which were furnished before the Court, while seeking Anticipatory Bail.
14. The learned Counsel for the Second Respondent has invited the attention of this Court to see as to under which Section of the Act, the complaint was registered. The Petitioner is a habitual offender, who had entered into an agreement with a condition, which was referred to in the typed set Volume No.4 annexed to charge sheet at Page No.50 which is the Copyright Assignment Agreement entered into between the second Respondent and the Petitioner herein dated 01.08.2015 wherein it is stated 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 as follows:
“1) The Producer has re-purchased the assigned/distribution rights from the Distributor, granted under the Agreement dated 29.05.2013, for a consideration of Rs.10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Twenty Lakhs Only).
2) The re-purchase consideration of Rs.10,20,00,000/- is agreed to be paid by the Producer to the Distributor in the following manner:
i) Rs.2,75,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore five lakhs only) will be paid by the Producer to the Distributor before the release of the move VAALU. Lab letter will be issued to the Distributor assuring the payment of Rs.2,75,00,000/-.
ii) The remaining sum of Rs.7,45,00,000/-
(Rupees Seven Crore Forty Five Lakhs only) will be adjusted by the Producer towards part-payment for grant of exclusive theatrical rights of distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the another movie currently being produced by M/s.NIC Arts, titled as Vettai Mannan (Tamil) for the State of Tamil Nadu for a full consideration of Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore only). After such adjustment, the Distributor is 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 liable to pay balance consideration of Rs.4,55,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crore Fifty Five Lakhs only) to the Producer before release of the movie Vettai Mannan. Lab letter is issued by the Producer to the Distributor assuring grant of distribution rights.” Further, in Clause No.14, it is stated as follows:
“14. The Lessor irrevocably agrees affirms, declares warrants and undertakes that they have not prior to the signing of this Agreement granted, assigned or in any way transferred the said rights to any other person, assignee or organisation whatsoever. The Lessor further declares, covenants and undertakes that he shall not during the period of this Agreement grant or transfer in any other way or transfer the assigned rights of the said Films in the said territories to any other person or organisation whatsoever;
They shall not hereafter create any charge or lien on the rights of the said Film for the said territory/territories under the shape of the raising finances or otherwise without obtaining prior consent in writing of the Assignee herein and until the same is so done, no lien or charge, if any created, shall bind or affect the rights herein of the Assignee in any manner.”
15.The learned Counsel for the second Respondent submitted that the 12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 second Respondent filed Crl.O.P.No.6497 of 2019 in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2018 in Crime No.405 of 2018 seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner herein in Crl.O.P.No.26652 of 2019 wherein status report filed by the Investigation Officer stated as follows:
“5. I submit that on 11.01.2018, with regard to the Remake and Dubbing Rights Agreement assigned between M/s.NIC Arts owned by 2nd Respondent/Accused, represented by its proprietor Mr.S.S.Chakaravarthy, having office at No.1, Senthil Andavar Koil Street, Saligramam, Vadapalani, Chennai and M/s.Sri Ganesh Films, represented by its Proprietor Mr.Srinivasan Ramamoorthy, having office at No.36, Girigowda Road, Jai Nagar, Bangalore. Due to Remake and Dubbing Rights Agreement, the said Srinivasan Ramamoorthy has given 3 cheques Nos. Viz., #000156, #000157 and #000159 (amount of Rs.60 Lakhs each) to the second Respondent/Accused as advance, but the above said cheques remains in unpaid status as on date, as per bank records. With regard to, on 06.02.2019 & 05.07.2019, the 1st Respondent has issued summons to the said Srinivasan Ramamoorthy and the same was received by him, but he did not appear before the 1st Respondent police for enquiry.” 13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021
16.The status report was filed based on the direction from the Hon'ble High Court to the Investigation Officer to examine the case related documents. Based on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court the Investigation Officer found as follows:
“8. I submit that the second Respondent/Accused obtained anticipatory bail by producing forgery documents. Hence, the De-facto Complainant filed this present petition to cancel the anticipatory bail of the Accused/2 nd Respondent and when the matter came up for hearing on 01.07.2019 the court orally directed the 1st Respondent Police to verify the documents produced by the Accused, in which he has obtained anticipatory bail.
11. I submit that the 2nd Respondent/Accused would tamper the witnesses and the liberty of bail granted was misused by the Accused and he fabricated the documents to deceive the investigator.” The offence is breach of contract and there is also irregularity and criminal negligence, for which the FIR was registered and while granting 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 Anticipatory Bail, the Second Respondent had objected for grant of bail. He also invited the attention of this Court to the statement recorded from the De-facto Complainant, P.Ws.1 to 18 and also bunch of vouchers annexed to the typed set of papers filed along with this Criminal Original Petition in Vol.4.
17. In the light of the above, the learned Counsel for the Second Respondent sought to dismiss the petition with a direction to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court to dispose of the case made under Central Crime Branch, CBCID cases arising out of Chennai City.
18.The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on the following rulings in support of his contentions:-
18.1.In the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 206 [Priti Saraf and Another -vs- State of NCT of Delhi and Another] the orders of the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was set aside. The observations 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 made in the above said decision read as under:-
“32. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings.
33.We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and orders of the Courts below and have taken into consideration the material on record. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the issue involved in the matter under consideration is not a case in which the criminal trial should have been short-circuited. The High Court was not justified in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The High Court has primarily adverted on two circumstances, (i) that it was a case of 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 termination of agreement to sell on account of an alleged breach of the contract and (ii) the fact that the arbitral proceedings have been initiated at the instance of the appellants. Both the alleged circumstances noticed by the High Court, in our view, are unsustainable in law. The facts narrated in the present complaint/FIR/charge-sheet indeed reveal the commercial transaction but that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such transaction. In fact, many a times, offence of cheating is committed in the course of commercial transactions and the illustrations have been set out under Sections 415, 418 and 420 IPC. Similar observations have been made by this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal (supra):— “9. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence.
Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]” 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 18.2.In the reported ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2020) 14 SCC 552 [K.Jagadish -vs- Udaya Kumar G.S. and another] it has been stated that the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings and the appeal was allowed directing the trial Court to take the criminal proceedings to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. In the above said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
“A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 482 – Civil proceedings initiated subsequent to criminal proceedings – Effect on criminal proceedings, if any – Held, in certain cases, very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings – Even if civil remedy is availed by party, he is not precluded from setting in motion, proceedings in criminal law, or continuing with the criminal proceedings if already initiated – Matter has to be determined on the facts of each case – In the facts and circumstances present case, criminal proceedings, restored – Decision rendered by High Court, set aside.” 18.3.In the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme in (2009) 1 SCC 69 [Sri Krishna Agencies -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh and another] it was held that a criminal proceeding can be initiated even though civil 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 proceeding was pending and the quashing of the criminal proceedings by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was set aside. The observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is extracted as under:
“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S. 482 – Quashing of complaint – High Court quashed the proceedings under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that appellant had already taken recourse to arbitration proceedings which is obviously of a civil nature – Held, there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding if the two arise from separate causes of action – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – S. 138.” 18.4.In the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme in (1999) 8 SCC 686 [Trisuns Chemical Industry -vs- Rajesh Agarwal and others] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set aside the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat by observing as under:
“A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.482 – Quashing of complaint or FIR – Cheating alleged – Criminal Prosecution, held, cannot be thwarted merely because civil proceedings are also maintainable – Existence of an arbitration clause in the 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 contract for supply of goods between appellant Company and another company, held, not a sufficient ground for quashing the complaint filed by the appellant against the supplier company alleging cheating by supplying inferior goods – Penal Code, 1860, Ss.415 and 420 – Arbitration – Generally – Possibility of cannot thwart criminal proceedings – Arbitrator not competent to adjudge an offence.” 18.5.In yet another reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1999) 3 SCC 259 [Rajesh Bajaj -vs- State NCT of Delhi and another] the quashing of the proceedings by the High Court on the ground that the Civil dispute had been converted into a criminal complaint was set aside in the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant paragraph is extracted as under:
“9.It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 the offence has been laid in the complaint the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are a sound reminder: (SCC p. 379, para 103) “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
19.Placing reliance on the above rulings, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent submitted that what are all argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner can be gone into by the trial Court and not by exercising the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the nature of case is a civil dispute, therefore, the 21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 criminal case cannot be instituted or cannot be prosecuted. The Investigation Officer had collected materials attracting the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the offences are not attracted as it is merely a civil dispute is to be treated as valuable defence of the Accused which is to be appreciated only during trial on appreciation of evidence and not by this Court invoking the extraordinary powers/inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in the light of the above cited rulings, this Court has to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition as not maintainable with a specific direction to the learned Trial Judge to dispose of the case on merits as per law within a specified time.
20. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the First Respondent vehemently objected to quash the charge sheet stating that the Investigation Officer had collected materials regarding the offence made out by the Petitioner.
21. In the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 judgement of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, certain guidelines had been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) sought to dismiss this Petition seeking to quash the charge sheet.
22.The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted on consideration of the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 206 [Priti Saraf and Another -vs- State of NCT of Delhi and Another];
(2020) 14 SCC 552 [K.Jagadish -vs- Udaya Kumar G.S. and another]; (2009) 1 SCC 69 [Sri Krishna Agencies -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh and another]; (1999) 8 SCC 686 [Trisuns Chemical Industry -vs- Rajesh Agarwal and others] and (1999) 3 SCC 259 [Rajesh Bajaj -vs- State NCT of Delhi and another]. Therefore, whether the ingredients of offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are attracted or not is to be tested by the trial Court on appreciation of evidence as per the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent. Therefore, in the light of the reported 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 rulings, the arguments put forth by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is rejected.
23.In the reported rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent above, it is to be noted that the High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings on the ground of civil proceedings were initiated, arbitrations were initiated and civil proceedings pending in court. The orders of the respective High Courts quashing the proceedings were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal. Under those circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the second Respondent had initiated criminal proceedings for a civil dispute to harass the Petitioner cannot at all be accepted and hence, rejected.
24. The Petitioner's contention to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.5211 of 2020 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for Central Crime Branch, CBCID cases arising out of Metropolitan Area, Egmore, Chennai cannot be accepted in the light of the objection by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 Complainant. Further, as per the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 relied on by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto Complainant, what are all argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is to be considered as valuable defence that cannot be considered by this Court exercising discretion/extraordinary power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is to be considered only during trial in the criminal case before the trial Court on appreciation of the evidence which cannot be a criteria to quash the charge sheet. Therefore, in the light of the vehement objection by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto Complainant, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is rejected and the submission of the learned Counsel for the second Respondent/De-facto Complainant is accepted.
25.In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed as having no merits.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for CCB-CBCID cases arising out of Metropolitan Area, Egmore, Chennai is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Petitioner herein is directed to co-operate with the pending trial. If the accused does not co-operate and abscond, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for the offences arising out of the Metropolitan Area by Central Crime Branch of the City Police and CBCID Metro, they shall be detained in Prison till the disposal of the case. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.10.2022 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No kmm/srm 26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 To
1.The Metropolitan Magistrate Court for CCB/CBCID, Egmore, Chennai
2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
kmm/srm 28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 Order made in Crl.O.P.No.537 of 2021 and CRL.M.P.Nos.310, 311 & 6104 of 2021 06.10.2022 29/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis