Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Deepak Munjal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 July, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 685 of 2016
DEEPAK MUNJAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
This appeal is filed against the impugned order, dated 01.03.2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal revision No. 627 of 2005, wherein the High Court has dismissed the criminal revision against the summoning order passed by the trial court against the accused-appellants herein, to face trial, for the offence under section 420 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
A brief reference to the facts of the case may be necessary for disposal of this case. Two export orders of respondent No. 2, procured by the buying agents (Accused Nos. 1 & 2), were sent to the buyer/importer-Zodex, a company based in California. The appellants were the shipping agents for the aforesaid transaction which was carried out without receiving the documents from the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2017.08.24 bank. Having suffered a loss of US$ 12,115.82 (Rs. 99,69,443/-), 16:15:45 IST Reason:
respondent no. 2 filed a criminal complaint No. 419/2004 under 2 Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad against the buying agents (accused Nos.1&2), buyer/importer (accused No.15) and the appellants (Accused Nos. 3-6, 8, 9, 11).
On the perusal of the record, we found that this Court, by order dated 02.05.2008, has already disposed of the connected special leave petition being SLP (Crl.) No. 2132/2006, as the parties therein (who were accused Nos. 1 & 2) had entered into a Deed of Settlement dated 04.08.2006. As per the terms of the said Deed, respondent No.2 has been paid a sum of Rs 8 lakhs and the matter pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad, has been compounded.
Further, the civil action filed by the respondent No.2 in Superior Court of California, Country of Los Angeles (Case No. LC070530), against the buyer/Importer (Accused No.15), has also been dismissed by that Court as a settlement has been arrived at. As a result, the respondent No.2 has withdrawn the case filed in India qua the buyer (accused No.15) and buying agents (accused Nos. 1 & 2).
That being so, it is submitted by the appellants that they are only employed with the freight forwarding company and since respondent No.2 has already settled the matter with the importer (accused No.15) for a sum of $95,000 and the buying agents (accused Nos. 1 & 2) for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs, there are no specific allegations or overt act assigned to the appellants to attract the provisions of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
We agree to the aforementioned submission made by the 3 appellants. At best, the grievance of the respondent No.2 was non-payment of invoices of the handicraft items exported through the appellants to USA. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 has already settled the matter with the importer (accused No.15) and the buying agents (accused Nos. 1 & 2) and have received a sum of$95,000 and Rs. 8 lakhs from both of them respectively. Even if we presume that allegations levelled by respondent No.2 in the complaint do make out a dispute, still it ought to be considered that the same is merely a breach of contract and the same cannot give rise to criminal liability. Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the respondent No.2, importer and buying agents stands settled and in absence of any specific allegation against the appellants to show any dishonest inducement, in our considered opinion the very ingredients of Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 are not attracted. Hence, the appeal is allowed and for the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings against the appellants are quashed.
………………………………………………J. (N.V. RAMANA) ………………………………………………J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) New Delhi, July 13, 2017.
4
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.10 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 685/2010
DEEPAK MUNJAL & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 13-07-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Mr. V.Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Sinha Shrey, Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Sachdev, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Adv.
Mr. Uday Ram Bokadia, adv.
Mr. Atul Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Divya Garg, Adv.
Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR
Mr. Naveen Sharma, Adv.
State of U.P. Mr. D.K.Singh,AAG,
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SHASHI SAREEN) (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA) AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.