Karnataka High Court
N.Basavaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 CRI. L. J. 3665, 2011 (2) AIR KANT HCR 8
I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT DHARWAD
DATED "rms THE 28"' DAY OF JANUAR_7{W2G"!'_'Q---oi_ :
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS'I'ICFfi,f\RAI;.Iiv NAoAIe%A3[;~ee___A
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3;71/mg} }
BETWEEN:
1.N. Basavaraju S/o. VV Age: about 42 years, R/o.Gangav2.;t?, DistqgKof§]oal:;"'~:»,L"_:.._2 V' A' V
2. N. Nagarau"SE0:A"'Né1_g:a'p;;._;%{"-- Age: about._46. §;§_ears,_ R/o.Gvarig¢1voe5ti, Dist:""I{VVoppé'i_';""' (By Sri.M.3',.G"u«nda-vféI.&_e3 A.fli>~oe'ate.) AND: A V' 'A S"t"ei'tAe.A ot"'-'K€amataka """ "
Po-}_ic.e'I«n$pe:et«ot',_ '*-- __ Town Po}i'ee 'S_tatio_n_;..
Gan gaya é--i._,' Di's.£";: --. Kop pal. v.v°*{{eprese1:.:_ed _by_ '7I_TheState Pubfic Prosecutor, "~I€i'vig__h"'Cojurt of"Karnataka, c 'Ci'rcu»it Bench, Dharwad.
" ffB_y'.'Sfi;P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP.) c.._.s:"*'v~*~/"-' ...Petitioners.
...Responder1t.
i\.) This Criminal Petition is filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C..g'ib--y the advocate for the petitioners praying that this Hon'_Jle:"«Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings«~~--..'arida' the investigation of the case in Gangavati Town.A4'"P.Syg.T"»C'1'iirnel".
No.17?/2009 and allow the criminal petition_...__,__:'»_v . This petition coming on for the Court made the following: 1 ' " --. . 2 oaneavit Accused Nos.l 'land C,-f:\i':~nfe.,iiil\_l_.o.177/2009 of Gangavati Town:..P:...;SV'p;'-- hzivegCs.ou'gih'tif_"--for:f'qiuashing of the investigation iri' th6C'3,%iid'----ea§3'éi'i.}vs. i' :
2) leading to the present petition are astrnderf ii ai)'-aw. '~-As as I I agriculturists is.t1ibmit't.ed respective representations bef'o.re if=iiSecretary, APMC, Gangavati (coii"npla:ina'nt), alleging that the petitioner and 2 herein (respectively A.l and A.2 it said case), being the partners of Nigiranjan Trading Company, Gangavathi, purchased certain quantities of paddy from r"--(--mw~"""""""
1;) each of them and despite several demands failed to pay the price thereof and the1"efor_e''~.t''''4--i" ' the Secretary shall get the same paid petitioners (accused).
b) The complainant-Slepcretasriyli',§vhi'le"t':..,.,,..
enclosing copies of each the ii representations and the thereto by the respveetive&..ag1*Aict1ilit'u.rists4hfiled his complaint dated""8'}8/21Q'Qi9:ivbe'fr§r.ethe PSI of Gangavati Town:.I';S.:fOVnt..0f the said co1nplai"ntii:{til?ie the said crime wtilijciiiipjPeitiitiiioners for the offencei'iii'U,/ASvfe'ci;i3§Z"G of IPC and issued'~._F"{R'a:cc:ioif.dien.é'iy:l"_.Therefore both the petitioners' ilhvatre the present petition U/Sec".4.82 seeking order quashing °'~tphe""ent'Ai'ir'e iiinvestigation in the said case. arguments of Sri.M.B.Gundawade, the V'.:-pplearned c"ounisei'iiifor the petitioners and Sri.P.H.Gotl<hindi, .1iitihei.fl.earned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the in the complaint dated 8/8/2009 filed by the .m~("\F'--"x_» complainant-«Secretary, and the original representations said to have been submitted by the agriculturists before the complainant. Also perused the entire material foun'd..iin'l'c.he police papers copies whereof are furnished to the learned High Court Government vPi'ea-der.-1 i
4) Sri.M.B.Gundawade,.*the learned petitioners--accused, strongly in the complaint dated 8/8/2Ofi'«-F._9zV:i" complainant- Secretary do not constvpitutethie offence of cheating which is punishable U/Sec.420 the registration of the said crime agfinsi biotl1.:iAtl1Ve.v"saiidiaiccused for the said offence on cioni'1t3laint cannot be sustained in law ands'---he.ncge-d:t«hVeffentire investigation pursuant to the iiregistratiion ..__of-the said case deserves to be quashed. He .c_onte"n_ds that even if there be any dispute between V"if'V..ithejjsaii-diialgriculturists and the petitioners~accused in respect transactions said to have been taken place between i 5 them as to the sale and purchase of paddy and payment of price thereof by the accused to the said agriculturistsjtlie same would be of civii nature and tl1ere1"ore._i__:'then investigation in the said case pursuant to the_s'ai.dife.oin:pl.ainit' cannot be allowed to be continued.
5) Sri.M_.B.Gundawade,Vth--e learnedcaaumfoi~ hey! petitioners, further contends tl1a_t_l"cyen_ ifhthere was any dispute between the said aiigricul--t_ui§.is.tsi"'o':nyi'the one side and the petitioners--accused_ other, '~in.iV"'respect of the transactions~"o'f' anti"-pu-rchasepf'paddy, the same could have been sVettle_d'by:thev'co_@pi:lia..inant--Secretary as provided U/Secs.84__and LS/ifAV_o~f itvhei"'i(arnataka APMC (Regulation ainvd°~De\r~eiio5p1nenpt) }HXcitWil966 (hereinafter referred to as but the complainant--Secretary, i';r:iins_tead or settl-ing the dispute, hastily filed this complaint Vathese' petitioners before the police and therefore the V.'at'v...im{esitVi.giation in the said Case deserves to be quashed.
""""'£*-Wk'-\"'--'L_,,'4
6) Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP for short) strongly contends that fact that the accused, being partners of then"isaiiq"Ti.'-rail'-*,--tA* purchased from the said ll agricu1tu.ri'st~s..yaréiiouscduahti.i:t.iei's. ii of paddy promising them that the paid by them within a reasonable\...{i\ii*ae, but fia--flef~,,:l the i same and the cheques issuied to'."s"oViniiejéppopl"-them"towards part payment of price of the them to the petitioners came bank on the instructions of there being sufficient funds in clearly go to show that, while :'s::'ci_'i»sdib1uantities of paddy from the agr_ic§ipultiuristslithepetitioners did not intend to pay its price' an'd.ythve4rel'etre it could not be said that the contents of reipresentati'iliQ_nies made by the said agriculturists before ..i_iyfth.4ei'..,pcon*1p*iaiiinant~Secretary and the contents of the the complainant lodged by him based on the ,«..:*v--»«-» said representations do not constitute the offence U/Sec.420 ofIPC.
7) The learned HCGP further contendsn.....t.h_ait,_'iiithie._ intention with which the petitioners made,v_p'*r.on<ii"se respect of payment of price of the paddy:..piufjro'hpa:sedi from the said agriculturists hats-to biet.,_gi'athe;"ed'.Vp:fromiltheft".
facts proved by the prosecution triai therefore the investigation at the "'-i'npi--tiai itself cannot be quashed. He furth.er_:;co_nte¥nidisthat'pi-etitiiioiners have not produced avi1"Y"' show that the said agricuiturists representations faiseiy against the peti'tio'rie:rs there has been abuse of lasv soflasiifltoisieiek an order of this Court quashing in the said case.
8)"'---- Theviiiearned HCGP further contends that, the flpetpitwiioners have not produced any materiai to substantiate that there has been Disputes Committee (__"_{"'"""'-s.----..
constituted U/Sec.84 of APMC Act and therefore the complainant-Secretary could have Settled the between the agriculturists on the one sided. petitioners-accused on the other, .in~st.ead.'liolfl"'f1vling.4_l_}th'eeV present complaint against these
9) As to the quashing CI.'li1'1'"li_1l_1'lci*All at the initial stage of iallldeielision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of _Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawa.3.lalii:report--gQ€ 164 : 1996 AIR SCW lilsf:.3lobster-tied""by"lthe Hort'ble Supreme Court at para' in the said case as under:
Q Fara-. hlasiibeen held by this Court in "-that the inherent power of the lcgtnt l.lunti~erE'.lbection 482 of the Code of "Procedure should be very sparingly cautiously used only when the court to the conclusion that there would be tnanifest injustice or there would be abuse of arm"-~{'MN"\"r«'--"--'* ll vengeance process of criminal is availed of in laying, a complaint or FIR itself does not disclose at all _ any cognizable offence ---- the court_;""* ' may embark upon the consideration." thereof and exercise the power.
10) Further, in the :caseAl?__ N.L.Cl1andrasIrekar and otl1elfs:lV:."lreported'Tilinlf:@009)2V Supreme Court Cases» Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed_Vat.VVp'a._ra> N'o.V1'4:..';;--.sl"under:
"Para 'well--settled principle-j' Court in exercise _ . jurisdiction under Sectioln«{182lo'f._thiej V(ii3io*de"'1riay quash a criminal proceeding» V'in_.t_e',-rt in the event the Inade. .... in the complaint petition i 'it.h'evi:y"*-,a_re taken at their face value and "'accegot'eld"_~v,,i_i'rt:their entirety do not disclose cot--nmi_ss'ior1 of a cognizable offence. Some of Hthe p"1'.iHn3ciples which would be attracted for iirn/i'o~l;<ing the said jurisdiction have been laid in indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India "arm. Are: (scc p. 748 para 12).
f-
1') "(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even ifthey are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do no V prima facie constitute any offenc~c--»..._if, or make out the case"""a'l!eged against the accused.
For this p'u.;pose",._ they"
complaint has to be e-x,a'1nined'as whole, but without exa"min.ing tile merits of the ,a"l.l..egatwions..:" Neither a detailed inquirv" nor a.j_'1ne"t..ijoul'o,us analysis of the rnaterlial _.~«nlorj~.aj_1 assessrneu-t ofg"t"r1e[" rel.ifabili'.ty Tor genuin,en'e.ss- ol7__ the5al'llegatio_n,s in the _c.o1n4piia,i.nt,~ ".yar--r'anted. while exan1ini;'ng pr'ayer5ffor'*q.uas»hi'ng of a = l(ii)Kf~co~1nprl.ali'nt may also be quashed wh'er'e_ a clear abuse of the 'vproce's,s Vof the court, as qglwhen t'l1.e_Vllcrirr.,inal proceeding is focurid to ha"v'e'lbeen initiated with rna.la.fide/malice for wreaking __"a.Vjeng~elalnc_'e or to cause harm, or "the allegations are absurd and in.-herently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall " not, however, be used to stifle or fscuttle a legitimate prosecution.
The power should be used .,.»_.§""*~--»-A-
l3 sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offencef'-._:
alleged. If the necessary.....factu_a'l foundation is laid in the cornpulaivnt, merely on the ground that 7a""t'eW'*-_v" V . ingredients have not,.b6_en stated V detail, the proceeding.s"~shoul"d.__not be quashed. Quashing of theyiin complaint is war,rante"d"on'ly"zvhere the complaint i's_};o L.>_er;eft"e_'1'°, gven the basic facts i'v'Wkiic_h_'--
absolutely nec,c'ss'a--t'y ".0fr_ n'1;al,<.i'ng out th€,''Offt?iiCB§3._ :
g"'iven-ei:'.'js.e.t'---of facts may n1a_k,e_ "'o.,t_1't:'*--(;;a)_ p-._u"rel'yi a--..c_iv»il wron g; or (b)'pfu.,rely, a .cri..mina-l offence; or (to) a'civil'ivv..ronvg'-as"also a criminal offence. ' vA'eorniin_e"rc'ial transaction or aiie.onvtractua_vli di-spute, apart from ;'fu:rnishi"n,g'"a cause of action for "<se_el<i,_ng remedy in civil law, may als.io_4in_volve a criminal offence.
",.A's,_'thie.,_n'a.ture and scope of a civil "--.V,«proc'_e_ed,i'ng are different from a crviminvail proceeding, the mere fact thaVt'the complaint relates to a cvornnrercial transaction or breach i'i"=._of contract, for which a civil ..*remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.
:~..s"*"--~»«--~ 14 The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not".
11) Keeping in mind the above principle.33i_:iliaii"tl.'fclo\%;r.ri', by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in th_e....decis_ioins"--i"efei':ied to supra, i now proceed to examine wh"eth-gr"'the*aVer1nen"ts_ii'n. the complaint and the rep1'esen:itations ll"
agriculturists to the comv;:»l.aina'n't'-'--'Secretary, taieen at their face value, disclose the the offence U/Sec.42(} of IPC3~b'3fitLli.*e pietitio~ne'rVs:¥aC-cu_sed herein.
12) The_Vcojrn;;ai.1i.aii'11t:::i':eliait§'di.l' g,* 3/2009 filed by the complainanit.-S'ecreta1?§-~._iir.e4iik'e_a'l'si "that as many as 11 agriculturists namely: A
1) H.M';G-.h-anamath Swamy, 2:)' _ Kakkare Sharanappa and Basavaraj, _ _ 3') . "E..§ir'3../anarayana Reddy, 4')'_g.___Ka'1"gi1 Shivanagouda,
5). . .i":~F'arijatappa, 'Lingappa, » '3.) * Ramanna, it 8) T.Nagappa,
9) K.Basavaraj,
10) Timmanna and Yamanappa, ll) Uttappa, £a___v£'-~r-».»---Lfl,._.
15
submitted their representations to the complainant» Secretary alleging that the petitioner Nos.I and being the partners of Niranjan Gangavati, purchased totally 7,237 bags»-of ii price of Rs.71,50,208/-- without givinigwthern giving them only chits written i0.iil"'~'Wl]li6'--piapfifif, the quantity of paddy purchased, t:hereoifiahd"iitl1e total amount payable by them This C0mP13lI1t tiha:tii'til1'e..----pietitioners paid to the said 11 agi'i.cuil,_it?d¥ri.iisits' or Rs.23,69,442/- and failedi to 5 of balance amount of Rs.47,80,766ii/;=despite and thus deceived the s_ai.d agric;-uItu'rists. "
statutory requirement that even if a iiiztraderip,urcliasies:s__'paddy or any other agricultural produce
-._iil'.j'dvi.rec.tly front the producers (Agriculturists), they have to bills for having purchased the same. It is the iis'pevc..i_fiiic case of the complainant that these petitioners, ...,S""':ar"\,»\___Mr_, 16 instead of issuing valid purchase bills to each of the said 11 agriculturists, they issued only chits written ori'=..w.h'iwt_e papers mentioning therein the quantity of its price, the amount paid and balance" of. ii the said agriculturists. It is Va1soila_lil'eged'*th'ei»:saii:d'~_ complaint that, the petitioners di"d.Tnot piay._th"e lfees as required under the prouis~iAong«"i§ifivitia:e iziiictiiiand thus committed an offence the APMC Act also as againeslxl
14) of"'tl°ie'"representations of the said 11 far1lneris«i_ by the 1.0. along with other police seen that, these petitioners fi€'o.m"'eachiioil"iithe said farmers specific quantities of and did not make payment of the ii';-Fip'ri_ces oi? so purchased. The said purchases were Aeduerinigi the month of June 2009. The documents "'."V.._Van.n_--e)'{ed'to the said representations, copies whereof are by the 1.0. clearly go to show that they were """'S-'-"'f""----"i.-»-*'*\ 17 issued on behalf of Niranjan Trading Company, showing therein total quantity of paddy purchased, price-«ji'oif"--«.th.e paddy and the balance amount payable by the the respective farmers.
15) 'Refening to the", contents :y¢r[dVthe$ej' representations Sri.M..B.G_undawad"e.,_ the lhearnedviicounsel for the petitioners strongty.cioc_n't-e:1dsff:ithat, there is no altegation in the said,rep'reis'en:tati1'o:ns tlhatbat the time of purchase of the; the said farmers, the petition'ers"' thereof, without any intention. said promise and thus, the dishonest:.intentiii"onl"onhthie-ipiairt of the petitioners--accused is representations and hence the transact.i'_ons'-Vcovuldpvbe only of civil nature and they do not constitute a.ny'='crirninal offence, much less the offence iiifls§s420oriPc.
18
16) I am unable to accept the above contention for the reason that, intention, whether honest or dishon«e"st',f"--.h'asA to be gathered from the facts proved during -the from the entire material collected i::y""'t'i1e investigation. The case is at thei".initial_yAA'sta'ge»j"-oif'~.
investigation. The ID. has to the to the facts of the case to the conclusion as to whethervptheienitiireig collected by him during civil litigation between provisions of any Of the 3€0l'i9Ti$ the provisions of Sec.420 of ofthe investigation it to the conclusion that there was_in*o:d'it.slior1e'st:'intention on the part of the petitioners ii"-~<while ipi_;4richasiinig'iithe various quantities of paddy from the fa1'rne1<.s_ii'prornising them to pay price thereof within ._ re'a..sio.na.ble time.
,_»»--_$-M\"'\--*-s.--...
19
17) Hon'b1e Supreme Court, in the case of K./Ishoka vs. N.L.Chandrashekar and others reported in (2009)2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 730, referred to su.pVr-aflhas observed as: "the complainant is not required produce the legal ingredients of them necessary factual foundation is laid the_v"covn2p'lCa'i.nizj--:t merely on the ground that a few'*-tfigredilheizts heen ii stated in detail, the proceeding?'s'hoall'al._ not "auashed. Quashing of the complaint 'i's_ where the complaint is so ev"e"r-'ts tiheililiasicifacts which are absolutely nAec'essary of the offence".
18)5..I1arnu"o.fthe considered opinion that in View of thehabosfe ohsehationsiiiioif Hon'b1e Supreme Court, it cannot be held-i'__t_ha"tvithis.Al.iVni"tiai stage of investigation that for want of. sortie V'-.ha1ive':gation in the complaint or in the
--..:reipresentAations submitted by the said agricuiturists to the A"ii},ooitnp'i§ainant--Secretary as to the dishonest intention on the of the petitioners-accused, the entire investigation ,.t..§-~»--«--~ 71 s..
agriculturists and other material on record collected so___ far by the 1.0., clearly go to show that the peti«tio:ne:r'3,"
purchased the various quantities of paddy froirr' farmers without issuing proper bills;,"Man'd«without"i_nai<.iing'g payment of market fees as required und..er'--the prey/iisi=ons"'e.f"~ APMC Act and, despite eeiejeees i"iri_a'deif the agriculturists, they failed thierhi..ftlFi.l3"ebalanlceifiprice of the paddy purchased from A
20) On thjepoliece papers contain a letter partner of Nirarljan Trading APMC (complainant herein). thisi"lVe'tt'eri.'wia'si shown to the learned counsel for he submits that since this letter is dated 9/I/20l"O._ii.e'ii't~he'ii.da'te which is subsequent to filing of the 7_present peti't.pio'n,i he cannot comment upon the contents of Howevei', he does not deny that this is a letter i" hy one of the partners of the said Niranjan Trading on the letter head of the said firm. On careful .--»S'_""""'""\--«' 22 reading of the contents of this letter it could be seen that it is stated therein that the firm is due some amount-fto:.ft._h'e_ traders and agriculturists in respect of purchasefofpcetctllatiiif V' quantities of paddy and it was decided in the prje'se_nicef'.«of'--»p the leaders that 50% of the price. thereof:"s.hould,.';b§~.p'aiidl'b;if*.
the firm, but, on account of dispiLit..el'l'betwe'e.nl"t*§: Blasavaraj (petitioner No.1) the partnierfpi-of-'the.is"'ai.Vd.v;f'ia:m and his elder brother Gurunathappa, thesaidfarn--ou,nt'lcolu:ld-- not be paid to the traders and ~ 1
21) complainant has produced with his complaint the revpresenptatiopnsiii him by the said 11 documents annexed therewith and collected some other documents l'7__pbe~sidesl.i"re'*cAor'ding the statements of the said 11 if.agrjiculturistlls and other witnesses which clearly establish lfthe case of the complainant requires thorough ll""..,insvestigation and the averments in the said complaint the _,..e....$~""""1__,,.........
allegations in the said representations of farmers and other material so far collected by the 1.0. dtlring'-i:'f"t.h'esA' investigation clearly go to show that the V' criminal proceedings against these petliltiloner's o;n_itli.e Vbaisislfip of the said complaint and representation;\i:annot"_iAbe as an abuse of process of the of the entire investigation ieixercise of inherent powers
22) illjearnieid counsel for the decision of Hon'ble Supreme in and others vs. State of fiifrqr (timiduanhbtliier'reported in AIR 2001 Supreme is«i_obseryHed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paraii'~N"os,«li'0 of its judgment in the said case as under:
Para 10. The ingredients of an offence iiof cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by Wg 13% F 24 deceiving him, (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person"---.i_'w.'_'i""
shall retain any property; or (b) the pers'on""s.,::g~ ii deceived should be intentionalilyiiii'i1<duct.ed_;v.it:o:i.
do or omit to do arlylhing do or omit if he were no'LV__s'o_deceived;
(iii) in cases covered by loft} omission should be'o_n'e -«ca,u's.es or is likely to cause damage or harem person induced in bovdy..: rnind rep:utatVi'o.ng.or' property.
I' a rag. 1--i;_u_a atra, J .), speakiingiiforvf,;he:§VBe:ncyh', in'._"'H'alridaya Ranjan State of Bihar and anotiher" 168), on facts of thatjcase, has e_}{'pres':3ed thus:
determining the question 'i.t'=ha:§fto_}~be kept in mind that the distifncltion between mere breach of c__oi1tract and the offence of ~ch;_eating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere (_{/'""'1_.»-.....---
25 breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore it is the intention whi.-::h""'---- 7 is the gist ofthe offence.§Toi'hol_ci_a_-:' _ person guilty of cheat'i.ng:."'iit'i' is necessary to show. that had,-71," Q' fraudulent or dishone_s't'~..inten'ti_on at the time of making the' promi.se;*'l From his mere failure. or keen ub'~. promise sub's'eo.1£r,i'tly_ a cuipabie intention 'lat': the beginning, that -.when lie, in-ad'e the pron:.ise._can'nogtl be pr'e°s-uin'ed."
23) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a conlipliagint of Cr.P.C. was filed by the c4omplaiv_n:-it:nlti_i"The l.swof.11__sSitatements of the complainant and recorded. Based on the averinents in the statements of the complainant and the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance alleged against accused therein. In the case there is no complaint filed U/Sec.200 of ,.n.S""~'"L.-\_ 27 reported in 1999(8) SCC 686 = AIR 1999 SCW 3499 and the said observations read as under:
14. In Trisuns Chemical '' Rajesh Agarwal and others
686) dealing with the effect eesiteeeeep arbitration clause in the agreleinentbii, 9' criminal prosecution on proceedings are also,maintla-inablle,tpthilsl 'Cvo.L1.r--t§ has held that or a complaint eX¢I'_cising~~~ ...?¢'We.1/. i~.ipuii"cE'l6l1l':"i {Section 482, Cr.P.C';ll'sh-olild-_ a very extreme an act has a civilside.Ti"t.'i's::'furt'hier--held that a provision made iinplthel for referring the disputes to _:ar'oi7trat-ion" is not an effective "*..l_'su15.sl'tit;,tttefor a"cr"i"m'inal prosecution when the 'd.is'pute_d*actAiconstitutes a criminal offence.
of the above observations of I-lon'ble _._.l'.jS~up1'-eme Court, even if the transactions between the said W,Vagiricuit-11r_i5sts and the accused constitute some civil liti§'tigat.iton, the investigation cannot be quashed only on that %mw 29 reasonabie opportunity of being heard in the manner as may be provided.
27) it is not in dispute that no Dispute.V_iCorn--irrii.tteie"i has been constituted by APMC, Gan.:gavAat.ifi'. submissions of the iearned counise--i__ for tile petiV:tiiojr.e_rs tliat the complainant-Secretary, to igiififiriwijlturists made their representations;bsiiotiylfd} the dispute resolved by invoki.ng_:':Vt'Vi1.e and 84--A of the APMC Act i3pvei'1 where there was a clause for to"'ai:bitration, the Hon'bie Supreme would not prevent the aggrieved'partyiiitoiiapproiacihiiitlie Criminai Court. Therefore tli:'ere_iii"wfere to be a Dispute Committee duly consiti_tiu.t_e«d"' APMC, it cannot be said that the co-mp]aiina.nt}ASeeretary should not have fiied his cornpiaint «:.'v..beifore'ii't.he"police for initiating proceeding against the ' present petitioners.
28) For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition filed U/Sec.482 of by the petitioners who are accused in No.l77/2009, seeking quashing of the inves_t.i_glat:io'n_Lin' said case, deserves to be dismissed asibeingh'de'voi_gdli..of' merits. Accordingly the same ise'd_ismilss_ed. Howesvier, afterlk completion of investigation, if thlie"'«.eihaVrge ishelet is} laid by the police concerned agaiI'ist" _tAh'iesej_';fie't--iftvio'ners, they would be at liberty to seekt1"1eir="di'scharg.e,_if'.piierlrnissible under Sc}/-3 JUDGE