Madras High Court
Mr.N.S.Rama Rao vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 19 December, 2008
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 19.12.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.O.P.No.6916 of 2005 and Crl.M.P.No.2602 of 2005 Mr.N.S.Rama Rao ... Petitioner Versus State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No.11, Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondent Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.541 of 2001, on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners .. Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian For Respondent .. Mr.J.Paul Noble Devakumar, G.A. ***** O R D E R
The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and he filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.541 of 2001 registered against him by the respondents for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 403, 411, 414, 420 and 424 of IPC.
2. In the F.I.R, the defacto complainant viz., S.Srinivasan, Director of Kilburn Electricals Ltd., Chennai-12, alleged among other things that one S.Suryanarayanan, who was employed by the complainant as a Development Manager, said to have taken out the design drawings and sample components with regard to the manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers etc. which was developed by the complainant and after joining the services of the N.S.Rama Rao Body Works, Chennai-32, he used the said drawings etc., and manufactured the said product and marketed them also and thereby caused loss to the complainants company.
3. Heard Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Paul Noble Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, the same complainant has given complaint against S.Suryanarayanan to the respondent herein who registered a case in X Crime No.1101/97 under Section 408 of IPC. The respondent after investigation has filed a final report on 16.4.2001 closing the case and the protest petition filed by the defacto complainant was also dismissed. Hence the present F.I.R itself verbatim production of the earlier F.I.R amounts to second F.I.R and the same is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the allegations made in the F.I.R do not constitute commission of offence and that the petitioner herein has not been specially implicated for the alleged commission of the offence. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments.
1.(1989)4 SCC 59 - State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs. R.K.Srivastava and another.
2.(2006)6 SCC 736 - Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others.
3.2007 SCCL.COM.1042 - Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others.
4.2008 AIR SCW 4634 - V.R.Dalal & Ors., vs. Yogendra Naranji Thakkar & Anr.
5. In (1989)4 SCC 59 - State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs. R.K.Srivastava and another, on the facts of the case it was held that the allegations made in the F.I.R do not constitute any offence of cheating or forgery and as such the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court.
6. In (2006)6 SCC 736 - Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others, the principle relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the complaints and Criminal Proceedings are enunciated, which are as follows:
"(i) A complainant can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complainant has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed of, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."
7. In 2007 SCCL.COM.1042 - Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others, a civil suit was already instituted and thereafter criminal proceedings came to be launched and the Honble Supreme Court held that the same would amount to abuse of process of Court.
8. In 2008 AIR SCW 4634 - V.R.Dalal & Ors., vs. Yogendra Naranji Thakkar & Anr., it has been held that the dispute between the parties are purely civil in nature and allowing of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court and therefore the criminal proceedings were quashed in the said decision.
9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the ratio laid down in the above said decisions is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the F.I.R is liable to be quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
10. Per contra, Mr.J.Paul Noble Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would contend that investigation is at the threshold and it is not open to the petitioner to suspect the genuineness of the prosecution at this stage. The truth and veracity of the complaint can be found out only after collection of materials during investigation and therefore the present O.P. is liable to be dismissed.
11. The learned Government Advocate brought to the knowledge of the Court that earlier the firm viz., N.S.Rama Rao Body Works has filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.16932 of 2002 and it was dismissed and therefore, the present Crl.O.P. also liable to be dismissed.
12. The court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and also perused the materials available on record in the form of typed set of documents filed by the petitioner.
13. The defacto complainant on an earlier occasion has filed a case in X Crime No.1101/97 before the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 408 of IPC on the part of Suryanarayanan, making the very same allegation. In the said FIR the defacto complainant has stated as follows:
"We also learnt that at Rama Rao Body Works he has started clandestine manufacture of our very same products for them using some of our materials taken out stealthy and that he has taken with him complete set of designs, drawing and technical details. The above amounts to theft, criminal breach of trust misappropriation and cheating."
The respondent after investigation, has closed the said complaint and the defacto complainant has filed protest petition which was also dismissed. Long time thereafter, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint alleging that the accused in the earlier case viz., Suryanarayanan got employment in N.S.Rama Rao Body Works in which the petitioner herein is the partner and the designs and drawings brought by him from the defacto complainant company were used for the manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers identical to the design developed by the defacto complainant company with the help of AEG Germany.
14. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture, according to the F.I.R in X Crime No.1101/97, the alleged offence took place after 8.6.1997 and the complaint came to be lodged on 14.8.1997. Subsequent to the complaint, M/s. N.S.Rama Rao Body Works filed a suit in O.S.No.5583 of 2002 against the defacto complainant praying for declaration that they had right to use drawings and designs for the manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers and praying for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs right of manufacturing of Vacuum Circuit Breakers and the same is pending trial. That apart, there is not even a whisper of allegation against the petitioner herein and the entire allegations are scented around the first accused Mr.N.R.Magesh who is the son of the petitioner. It is to be noted at this juncture that the earlier complaint against S.Suryanarayanan in X Crime No.1101/1997 has been closed and the main allegation was that he only took the drawings from the defacto complainants company and after got employment with N.S.Rama Rao Body Works, made them to use the drawings for the manufacture of of Vacuum Circuit Breakers. Admittedly, the said complaint has been closed and the protest petition filed by the defacto complainant was also came to be dismissed. A comparison of F.I.R in X Crime No.1101/97 and the present F.I.R in Cr.No.541/2001, there is verbatim reproduction up to paragraph No.21.
15. The present complaint seems to be on account of private and personal grudge and it comes under category No.7 of Bajanlals Case 1992 supp.(1) SCC 335 followed in (2006)6 SCC 736 -Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others. (cited supra). The dismissal of Crl.O.P. 16932/2005 filed by N.S.Rama Rao Body Works cannot act as a bar in entertaining the present Crl.O.P. for the reason that it was dismissed on the ground that the firm has no locus standi to file the petition to quash the proceedings and it has been held that if any one is aggrieved, it can only be the persons, who are shown as accused, viz., N.R.Rama Rao Body Works and its two partners of the firm. The petitioner herein is Mr.Rama Rao one of the partners of the firm and according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, he is more than 80 years old.
16. The court taking into consideration of the above said relevant facts and keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above decisions is of the opinion that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would clearly amounts to abuse of process of court and would definitely result in miscarriage of justice and hence the F.I.R in so far as he is concerned is liable to be quashed.
17. In the result, the Crl.O.P.is allowed and the F.I.R in Crime No.541/2001 in so far as the accused No.2/petitioner herein is quashed and the respondent is at liberty to investigate the case pertaining to the said Crime Number against other accused in accordance with law and file a final report. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.2602 of 2005 is closed.
18. The above findings/observations are given only for the purpose of disposal of this Crl.O.P. and this Court is not expressing any opinion as regards the merits or otherwise of the case registered by the respondent against other accused.
gr.
To
1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No.11, Egmore, Chennai-8.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras