Jharkhand High Court
Biresh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 August, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 222 of 2023
1. Biresh Kumar Singh, aged about 51 years, S/o Arun
Kumar Singh R/o M-60, 1st Floor, G.K.-1, P.O. & P.S.
Greater Kailash, Dist. South Delhi-110048, Delhi.
2. Amit Srivastava @ Amit Kumar Srivastava, aged
about 46 years, S/o Arun Kumar Srivastava, R/O Flat
No.201/A, Siya Chandrika Complex, R.M.S. Colony,
P.O. & P.S. Kankarbag, Dist. Patna-800020(Bihar)
3. Manoj Thakur @ Manoj Kr Thakur, aged about 40
years, S/o Ashok Kumar Thakur, R/o Gokuldham
Society, Flat No.207, 2nd Floor, B-Block, Hullas
Vihar, P.O. & P.S. Anisabad, Dist. Patna-
800002(Bihar).
4. Ashish Ranjan, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Daya
Shankar Prasad, R/o Sabari Nagar, P.O. Sahay Nagar,
P.S. Rupaspur, Dhanaut, Dist. Patna-801506(Bihar).
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Sheo Prasad Singh, Male, S/o Late Kunwar Singh,
Aged about 58 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Ratu
Road, P.O.-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District
Ranchi, Pin-834001.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
: Ms. Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate.
: Ms Ushma Pandey, Advocate.
: Mr. Sharabhil Ahmed, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Deepankar, A.C. to G.A.-III.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
------
08/ 28.08.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned
counsel the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.
2. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 17.08.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2494 of 2015, pending in the -1- court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.
3. The complaint case was lodged alleging therein that the complainant is one of the partners of a partnership Firm with name and style of M/s Rudra Enterprises and the accused persons are employees of a Company namely Castrol India Ltd. The complainant's firm was appointed as one of the dealer of the said company for selling its products in different District of Jharkhand. Against the appointment of distributorship the complainant's firm provided Bank guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/- with the Company as security deposit. The accused no.1 is empowered to appoint and terminate distributorship of any distributor in the Eastern Region of India and the accused no. 2 and 3 can also recommend for termination of distributorship. Before 2013 the complainant have no grievance and he was running hid distributorship smoothly but accused no.1 took command of the present post of General Manager of the said Company of the accused persons started putting pressure upon the complainant and other partner of the firm to fulfill their demand and the partner of the firm under fear of loss had to accept their illegal demand and complainant started giving Rs. 20,000/- to accused no.1, Rs. 10,000/- to accused no.2, Rs. 5,000/- to accused no.3 and Rs. 2,000/- to accused no.4 per month from October 2014 onward. Under new agreement between the parties the complainant had to sell the product of the company on credit and huge sum of money was lying in the market as credit sale of the said firm. On 14.7.2015 the accused no.1 told him to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for all the accused persons named in the complaint petition and further threatened him if you not fulfil this demand he would terminate his distributorship. The said demand was also made to him by accused no.2. That on dated 20.7.2015 the distributorship of the complainant was curtailed. That on dated 21.07.2015 accused no.3 met to the complainant and again stated him to fulfill the demand of accused no.1. On dated 14.7.2015 the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- to accused no.3 and also disclosed his -2- difficulty with regard to the further demand by him. The complainant also shown his inability to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- per month to the accused persons. The accused no.3 again threatened him either to pay the money demanded by accused no.1 or to be ready to face the consequences. On dated 29.07.2015 the accused no.1 threatened the complainant on telephone that he would ruin his business if his demand could not have been fulfilled by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter under disguise to the higher official of the Company and in return the complainant vide letter dated 19.8.15 was informed that his distributorship was terminated by the company. Even after the termination of the distributorship accused failed to return back Rs. 15 lakhs which the complainant had deposited in guarantee.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the employees of Castrol India Limited, wherein petitioner No. 1 was working as General (East B2C) and petitioner No. 2 was working in the capacity of the Regional Sales Manager for Bihar and Jharkhand, petitioner No. 3 was working as Area Sales Manager for Ranchi, Jamshedpur and Daltonganj Area and the petitioner No. 4 was the third party employee of the said company. He submits that the respondent No. 2 has entered into an agreement with the Castrol India Limited for distributorship of the castrol lubricants, for which, the distribution agreement with the company dated 19.06.2001 was enter into, which was enforced up to 20.12.2000, which is contained in Annexure-3. He further submits that in terms of the agreement, the respondent No. 2 has provided the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 15 lakhs, pursuant thereto the respondent No. 2 started working as distributorship of the Castrol India Limited in the State of Jharkhand. He then submits that later on, the dispute between the parties taken place with regard to the sale agreement and pursuant to that the agreement was terminated on 19.08.2015, based on these facts, the false case has been filed against the petitioners by way of complaint -3- petition, in which, the learned court has taken the cognizance under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws the attention of the court to the cognizance order and submits that the said order is very long one and the learned court has already held that the case is arising out of a termination of the agreement and the dispute is commercial in nature, however, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. He further submits that the ingredients of Section 506 IPC is not made out and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Manik Taneja & Anr. Versus State of Karnataka & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 423, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme in para-11 and 12 has held as follows:-
"11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
"503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation" would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the -4- person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC."
5. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that no case under the aforesaid Section is made out, as such, the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed.
6. Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that pursuant to the complaint case, the learned court has taken the cognizance under Section 506 of the IPC.
7. Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that even the agreement has been terminated wrongly, and subsequently, the criminal intimidation has been made by way of threatening and to buttress his argument, he draws the attention -5- of the court to the solemn affirmation of the complainant. On this ground, he submits that the case under Section 506 IPC is made out, as such, the entire criminal proceeding may not be quashed that can be the subject matter of trial.
8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that admittedly there is a distributorship agreement between the Castrol India Limited and the respondent No. 2. Later on the dispute arose and the said agreement was terminated by the said Castrol India Limited on 19.08.2015 and thereafter the present complaint case has been filed. In the order taking cognizance itself, the learned court after discussing the entire materials has come to the conclusion that the allegations have not been substantiated with regard to the demand of money by the petitioners and he has further found that the case is of the business transaction between the parties on the basis the agreement discussed in the said order and for breach of the terms and conditions, the case has been lodged and in view of that the learned court has not been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 384 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. In course of the argument, it was pointed out that the complainant has moved before the learned revisional court for not taking the cognizance under Sections 384 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which was later on withdrawn by the complainant.
10. Thus, it is crystal clear that for the business transaction and violation of the terms and conditions of the distributorship agreement, the entire case has been lodged. So far as Section 506 of the IPC is concerned, the definition under Section 503 IPC is required to be looked into and even looking into the solemn affirmation of the complainant, there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to cause alarm in the mind of the respondent No. 2 causing obstruction in -6- discharge of the duty, moreover no inquiry witness has supported the allegation of Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and they have baldly stated about the threat. As such, the case of the petitioners is fully covered in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manik Taneja (Supra), on which, the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, to allow the proceeding to continue will amount to an abuse of the process of law. As such, the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 17.08.2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2494 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, are hereby, quashed.
12. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.] -7-