Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Pani And Ors. vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 8 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2003)BC523, 2003CRILJ1736, 2003 CRI. L. J. 1736, 2003 (1) SCC 730, 2003 AIR - JHAR. H. C. R. 417, (2003) 1 CIVILCOURTC 448, (2003) 1 KER LT 348, (2003) 2 ICC 287, (2003) 1 CGLJ 162, (2003) 1 INDLD 850, (2003) MATLR 310, (2002) 9 SCALE 690, 2003 ALL CJ 1 717, (2003) 1 DMC 1, (2003) 2 ANDHLD 87, (2003) 3 ALL WC 2288, (2003) 2 CAL HN 116, (2003) 1 CURCC 123, (2003) 3 MAD LW 197, (2003) 1 RECCIVR 469, (2003) 2 CURCRIR 402, (2003) 2 BANKCAS 523, (2003) 2 EASTCRIC 193, (2003) 1 SUPREME 441, (2003) 1 MARRILJ 604, (2003) 2 CIVLJ 264, 2003 BLJR 1 682, 2003 UJ(SC) 1 215, (2003) 4 BOM CR 320
Author: Lakshman Uraon
Bench: Lakshman Uraon
JUDGMENT Lakshman Uraon, J.
1. The petitioners have moved with a prayer to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 4.7.2001 under Sections 467, 468, 469, 419, 420, read with Section 34, IPC in G.R. Case No. 337/200 (Senha P.C. Case No. 56/2000 passed by the learned C.J.M. Lohardaga. O.P. No. 2, Nipun Mrinal, alleged that the petition No. 1 Ranjit Pani, got a lease-deed signed by him on the understanding that if he leased out the land to the Company and after petrol-pump is established he will be given the dealership and also assured that the informant would make a lot of money out of this agreement. On such assurance the informant, O.P. No. 2, Nipun Mrinal, agreed to lease-out the land for a nominal rent. The informant was asked to give a Bank Guarantee and he furnished Bank guarantee of Rs. 4 lakh. The informant was given a post-dated cheque against the rent. The petitioners started working and they filled the well of the informant situated on the land. Later on the Company refused to give him the retail outlet. On the other hand, his intention was to give the dealership to another person. Hence the informant cancelled the lease and gave intimation to this effect. The informant has also alleged that the diesel oil which was stored in the tank claiming himself to have received the supply was also under the proposal to give to other person. The informant has alleged that he was induced and allured that he will be given retail outlet and got the lease-deed registered. When he came to know that he was induced for entering into an agreement and was agitated then he cancelled the lease agreement and informed the Company. Thereafter the petitioner-Company in collusion with the other Officers and local persons forcibly want to take possession of the land of the informant and also they are bent upon to give the COCO retail R.O. dealership. Hence he lodged the information resulting the institution of Senha P.S. Case No. 56/2000.
2. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted. The learned C.J.M., Lohardaga, by the impugned order dated 4.7.2001, perused the C.D. and charge-sheet and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the accused to proceed with the trial under Sections 467, 468, 469, 419, 420/34, IPC and ordered for issuance of summons after taking cognizance of the offence.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order of taking cognizance of the learned C.J.M., Lohardaga on the ground that these petitioners are the senior officers of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), The construction of tank, machines and other necessary implements for storage of petroleum, the construction work was done by B.P.C.L at a cost of Rs. 29,73,000.3000 litres of diesel oil in the tanker was stored by M/s. B.P.C.L at a cost of Rs. 59,000. No sale has been effected as no sale-licence could be made. The sale-agreement was made in between BPCL and Nipun Mrinal, the contractor in respect of operating the retail outlet. The petitioner, Sumit Roy, the Territory Manager, Ranchi, by his notice dated 10.8.2000 gave a notice of termination of the operatorship given to the informant, O.P. No. 2 Bank guarantee of Rs. 4 lakhs was also returned which was received by the informant. One Dinesh Sharma, who was the in-charge to look after the petrol pump, informed the officer-in-charge, Senha P.S. that on 4.11.2000 at 10 a.m. one Nandu Singh, employee of Kuru Petrol pump, forcibly took away the keys from him and put their own lock at the site. It is further submitted that BPCL intends to commission a new retail pump outlet in the town of Lohardaga as per the marketing plan under the "Corpus Fund Scheme" (the dealership is to be awarded to a candidate belonging to ST/SC category). The dealer is to be appointed by the Dealer Selection Board, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. Since the proposed dealership was under the Corpus Fund Scheme, the Corporation was looking for a suitable plot of land in the town of Lohardaga. The informant offered, to lease out his land in favour of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for a period of 20 years at the monthly rental of Rs. 1500 with 25% increase at the end of every five years. Nipun Mrinal agreed to lease out his land at the rental of Rs. 1400 per month and accordingly the lease-deed was registered for a period of 20 years effective from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2017. The Corporation released the lease rental in favour of the complainant with the receipt. Later on the complaint refused to receive the rental cheque for the period beginning from April 2001 to March 2002.
4. It was also submitted that after registration of the lease-deed the Corporation developed the site by spending about Rs. 30,00,000 and provided all the facilities. Since there was a delay on the part of D.S.B. in selecting the regular candidate to operate the said RPO, the Corporation wanted to operate the said RPO on its own through the complainant purely on temporary basis. However, due to change in the policy and directive, the said operationship agreement was terminated by BPCL vide their letter reference dated 10.8.2000. The complainant has filed this case with an ulterior motive. During the continuation of the tenancy the lessor should not have violated the conditions of the lease-deed by disturbing the peaceful possession of BPCL.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no inducement, abatement of forgery to give rise to any criminal action to the informant, O.P. No. 2. The deed of agreement and the cancellation of lease-deed and also the enhancement of rent, if any, would have been decided by a competent Civil Court as it is a business transaction regarding the execution of lease-deed and giving retail dealership to the informant, O.P. No. 2. It was further submitted that by instituting a criminal case it is simply an abuse of the process of the Court and has relied upon a case reported in (2000) 4 SCC Page 168. The learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has submitted that there is no irregularity in the impugned order taking cognizance of the offence. It was based on the basis of the charge-sheet submitted by the Police after investigation. The learned Court below also considered the statements recorded by the I.O. under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and found a prima facie case to proceed with the trial. In this present case the petitioners indulged themselves to commit the offence of cheating. They induced the opposite party to grant a lease on nominal amount of rent, dishonestly persuading him to believe that he will be given the necessary contract of retail outlet! They gave the contract to O.P. No. 2 under allurement by executing the agreement on grant of Rs. 4 lakh. Subsequently the execution of the lease of the said agreement on COCO RPO basis was cancelled without assigning anything which can be said to be a valid ground for cancellation of the said work. Subsequently the petitioner-accused persons have produced a false ground that some scheme of the Government under "Corpus Fund Scheme" purported to be a dealership to be awarded to a candidate belonging to SC/ ST category and subsequently thereto a Company changed its policy to open the said outlet for certain months.
6. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 in course of his argument has relied upon a case reported in (1996) 8 SCC 164 and (1999) 3 SCC 259 and has argued that the inherent power of the Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. should be very sparingly and cautiuously used only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be an abuse of the process of the Court. The cognizance taken by a Magistrate can be quashed only when the allegation made in the FIR and the other collected materials during investigation taken at their face value, do not constitute the alleged offence. At this stage it is not open for the Court either to shift the evidence or appreciate the evidence and the Court comes to the conclusion that no prima facie case is made out. It was also submitted that in this present Case the FIR as narrated by the O.P. No. 2, reveals a commercial transaction which does not elude the offence of cheating. Many cheatings are committed in course of commercial and money transaction.
7. In this present case the complainant was induced to get the land leased out for 20 years on nominal rent with the assurance that the contract of retail dealership operation would be given to him. As asked the O.P. No. 2 entered into a lease-deed for 20 years on nominal rent. He was also given temporary retail outlet operation which was subsequently cancelled and the Bank Guarantee was also returned to the O.P. The petitioners also filled the big well of the informant which was within the leased out premises.
8. While taking cognizance the Magistrate has not entered into the merit of the case meticulously. He has not considered as to whether the case will end in conviction or acquittal. If he finds a prima facie case to proceed with the trial to constitute an offence he can very well proceed with the trial of the case after taking cognizance of the offence. In this present case O.P. No. 2 is no doubt the land owner. He was induced and allured to give lease of his land to BPCL for a period of 20 years with the assurance that he will be given the contract of retail outlet dealership operation. But subsequently the scheme was changed that it will be provided to a member of S.C./S.T. community finally selected by the Dealer Selection Board. Thus, I find that the intention of these petitioners at the early stage itself was not bona fide. When the lease was registered and Bank Guarantee of Rs. 4 lakhs was given by the informant and the Company took the possession of the leased land and started development then later on it has retracted its assurance to give retail outlet dealership contract to O.P. No. 2 and cancelled the agreement to this effect. Thus, I find that even though there is a civil liability but the petitioners cannot be eluded from the criminal liability also. If the entire statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., makes out a prima facie case to proceed with the trial against these petitioners then taking cognizance by the learned Court below cannot be said to be the misuse of the process of the Court. The Magistrate has got an ample power to give an opinion as to whether a prima facie case is made out or not. In this present case the learned Court below has followed the procedure, perused the charge-sheet and police paper, submitted under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and took cognizance of the offence. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or any procedural defect in the impugned order of the learned CJM taking cognizance of the offence.
In the result this criminal miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, dismissed.