Madras High Court
Unknown vs / on 16 August, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and
16314 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on :02.08.2022
Pronounced on :16.08.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
Crl.O.P.No.30986 of 2019:
1.Himanshu Subash Chandra Pant,
Director, aged 39 years, S/o Subash Chandra Pant,
M/s M.G.H. Logistics Private limited,
House No.1137, 2nd Floor,
Sector 15, Park-II Farrukh Nagar,
Gurgaon 122 001,
Haryana.
2.Manikandan
S/o P.Ganesan, aged 40 years,
Branch Manager,
M/s M.G.H. Logistics Private limited,
No.97H, Palayamkottai Road,
Tuticorin 628 008.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and
16314 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
3.Rayar Anand, aged 44 years,
S/o A.James,
Alagendra Towers,
3rd Floor, Bungalow Stop,
Avinasi Road, Tiruppur. .. Petitioners
/versus/
1.The State Rep.by Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Tiruppur City.
2.R.Murugasamy,
Proprietor M/s Sri Amman Knits,
SF 236, Chettithottam,
Angeripalayam,
Tiruppur.
3.The Head Constable,
Central Crime Branch,
Tiruppur City. .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records culminating in FIR in Crime No.17
of 2019 on the file of the 1st respondent herein registered by the 3rd
respondent herein for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b), 406, 407
and 420 of IPC and quash the same.
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and
16314 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
For Petitioners :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.C.Kasirajan
For Respondents :Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1 and R3
Mr.B.M.Subash for R2
Crl.O.P.No.16314 of 2020:
Boris Ostrobrod
Citizen of Israel
Male, Aged about 62 years,
Grunner 23, Tel-Aviv-69498,
Israel. .. Petitioner
/versus/
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by Inspector of Police,
Central Crime Branch,
Tirupur City 64f1 601.
2.The Head Constable,
Central Crime Branch,
Tirupur City 641 601.
3/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and
16314 of 2020 and
Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
3.R.Murugasamy
Proprietor M/s Shri Amman Knits
S.F.236, Chetti Thotta,
Angeripalayam (Post), Tirupur. .. Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records of the 1st respondent's impugned FIR
bearing Crime No.17 of 2019, dated 05.11.2019 on the file of the Central
Crime Branch Police, Tirupur City and quash the same against the
petitioner.
For Petitioner :Mr.Pravin Rathinam
For Respondents :Mr.N.S.Suganthan
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1 and R2
Mr.B.M.Subash for R3
-----
COMMON ORDER
These two petitions had filed to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.17 of 2019 against four persons namely, (1)Boris Ostrobrod, (2) Himanshu Subhash Chandra Pant, (3) Manikandan and (4) Rayar Anand. J. for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 406, 407 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 and 420 of IPC. The impugned First Information Report has been taken up for investigation, based on the order passed under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirupur.
2. The allegations made in the First Information Report are as below:
One Murugasamy, the complainant is the Proprietor of Shri Amman Knits at Tiruppur. He is assisted by his son Suresh, his relative Ramasamy and his friend P.R.Raja. He is engaged in manufacturing knitwear clothes based on the orders from Foreign Countries. One of the customers M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC having its office at Russia placed order on 04.07.2018 to manufacture knitwear clothes as per the given specification. On confirmation of the design and product, he manufactured knitwear clothes and shipped the materials under invoice No.SAK/040/18- 2019 dated 25.01.2019 through Shipping Agent M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited. The Shipping Agent was specifically instructed to transit the cargo through Credo Trans Limited, who is the forwarding Agent of M/s Allison 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 Garments Prodactions LLC. A House Bill of Lading TUP 101902 dated 08.02.2019 was drawn and a copy was given to the complainant and along with the cargo, Master Bill of Lading was submitted to the Credo Trans Limited. The understanding between the complainant and the buyer was that on the arrival of cargo at Russia Port, the buyer M/s Allison Garments Prodaction LLC has to pay the value of the goods i.e. 112326.19 USD equivalent to INR 79,75,160.
3. On deposit of the said amount in the bank account maintained by the defacto complainant, he will forward the original House Bill of Lading to the buyer and the same will be presented to Credo Trans Limited, who is the Russian representative of M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited and thereafter, the buyer shall take delivery of the goods. However, the buyer did not deposit the value of the goods Rs.79,75,160/- in the defacto complainant's bank account at India. While so, he despatched the 2nd consignment under invoice No.SAK/044/18-2019 dated 01.03.2019. M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited at Tuticorin received the consignment sent 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 by the defacto complainant from Tirupur through a lorry. While the second consignment was in transit, the defacto complainant received a copy of the Master Bill of Lading in his e-mail. He realised that contrary to the instructions to M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited, its Russia representative Credo Trans Limited had delivered the first consignment to M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC. The consignment has been delivered to the buyer, without production of House Bill of Lading, which is the essential document for delivery of goods.
4. Thus, the Forwarding Agent M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited along with the buyer M/s Allison Garments Prodaction LLC had conspired to cheat the defacto complainant and had taken delivery of the goods without payment for the consignment. Later, the buyer had paid a sum of Rs.57,63,812/- instead of Rs.79,75,160/-. Further, it is stated in the complaint that G.Manikandan, Manager of M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited at Tuticorin acted upon the instructions of the former and present Director of M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited and attributing knowledge 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 to Tirupur Branch Manager J.Rayar Anand alleged that they all conspired to commit breach of trust and cheating.
5. In the complaint, it is stated that for the second consignment worth Rs.61,55,108/-, he was paid only Rs.30,77,554/-. Thus, alleging that a total sum of Rs.52,88,902/- is still payable to him, the impugned complaint has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate. The same was ordered to be investigated by the first respondent police, who in turn registered the complaint in Crime No.17 of 2019 under Sections 120B, 406,407 and 420 of IPC as against the petitioners herein.
6. Case of the Accused 2 to 4 in Crl.O.P.No.30986 of 2019:
As far as the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.30986 of 2019 are concerned, they are the accused 2, 3 and 4. They prays to quash the complaint stating that they are representatives of M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited, who was the Booking Agent through whom the consignments were delivered to the buyer at the desired destination through the Multimodal Transport 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 method. Their role is to forward the consignments booked by the customers to the given address, as per the details provided in the House Bill of Lading. In the instant case, their service was engaged by the Russian buyer and as per their instructions, they had to take delivery of the stocks on receipt of freight charges, as per the shipping bill. As the agent of the buyer, the goods sent by the complainant under shipping bill dated 08.02.2019 with instruction to be delivered to Russian buyer namely, M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC as consignee has to be carried out. In the waybill M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC is shown as consignee and not the Credo Trans Limited. When it was brought to the notice of M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited about the non payment of the goods value, they enquired Credo Trans Limited and came to know that as against the value of the consignment 112326.19 USD, a sum of 102878.11 USD has been remitted by them on 21.02.2019 and for the second consignment, they have remitted 43345.83 USD as against the value of the second consignment worth of 86691.66 USD and also came to know that there was some dispute regarding the quality of the goods supplied by the defacto complainant. 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 While so, when the second consignment was at Port of Russia, the defacto complainant instructed the shipping agent to retrieve the goods saying the buyer has not paid the value. Therefore, the second shipment was retrieved and the same was in German Port. During transit, the custom's officials of German insisted that the consignment docked for about two months must be moved. Therefore, the same was moved to the destination Port and unloaded.
7. The issue between the defacto complainant and the Russian buyer is regarding the short payment towards the goods supplied and quality of the goods supplied. In the said transaction, as Shipping Agent the petitioner's company namely M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited has no role. However, to harass and to exert pressure to recover the remaining amount, the defacto complainant has alleged as if the shipping agent has conspired with the buyer and allowed the buyer to take delivery of the consignment without original Bill of Lading. When the Inspector of Police attached to Central Crime Branch conducted the investigation, all the 10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 relevant papers had been produced. While so, First Information Report is registered without any basis and it is a clear abuse of legal process. The First Information Report registered by the Head Constable attached to the first respondent police instead of the Station House Officer causes doubt about the application of mind in registering the First Information Report after delay of 14 months from receiving the complaint from the Judicial Magistrate Court.
8. The petitioners, who are the representatives of the M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited, a transport company has no connection or contact with the consignee. In the case of dispute between the seller (consignor) and the buyer (consignee), M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited can only claim the freight charges but no compensation can be held liable for the alleged non payment of the value of the consignment by the buyer, who has taken delivery of the goods. The actual remittance by the buyer has not been mentioned in the complaint and suppressing those payments, the complaint has been filed with malafide intention to attract the provisions of 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 Penal Code in Sections 406 and 407 of IPC. When there is no averment of any dishonest intention at the inception and when there is no conspiracy alleged against the accused persons, offence under Section 120B IPC is also not made out.
9. Case of the first accused/petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16314 of 2020:
As far as the petitioner, who is the first accused in Crl.O.P.No.16314 of 2020 is concerned, it is contended that he is not aware of the complaint dated 14.10.2019 or the impugned First Information Report dated 05.11.2019. He is the citizen of Israel. Before pandemic, he went to Latvia but due to the out break of pandemic, he stays at Lativa. He is no way connected with the allegation stated in the First Information Report. He never held position of Director in M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC or any other position in the said entity. Further, he had no contractual relationship with the third respondent or with his proprietary concern M/s Shri Amman Knits. He also had no contractual relationship with M/s MGH 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 Logistics Private Limited LLC or Credo Trans Limited. Therefore, without any basis he has been arrayed as an accused, as if he is the Director of M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC. The impugned First Information Report dated 05.11.2019 is patently illegal, it is a vexatious and malicious prosecution initiated by the defacto complainant falsely implicating him as the Director of M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC. Even without conducting enquiry, whether he is the Director or not of M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC, who according to the complainant is the buyer of the product, the police has registered a case. Hence, it is liable to be quashed for “Mistake of Fact”. The First Information Report is an abuse of due process of law and not sustainable, since the ingredients for offences under Sections 120B, 406, 407 and 420 of IPC are not made out against him and when there is no nexus between the complainant and the accused shown or proved, he has to be excluded from investigation.
10. Response by the defacto complainant:-
The defacto complainant has filed a common written submissions 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 wherein it is stated that the genuineness and reliability of the First Information Report should not be looked into under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same has to be tried and proved in the Court of law. The documents relied by the accused cannot be looked into in a petition filed for quash under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
11. In this connection, the defacto complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty reported in [2021 SCC on line 1222] wherein it is stated as below:-
“15.The High Court should have seen that when a specific grievance of the appellant in his complaint was that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 379 read with Section 34 of IPC, then the question to be examined is as to whether there are allegations of commission of these two offences in the complaint or not. In other words, in order to see whether any prima facie case against the accused for taking its cognizable is made out or not, the Court is only required to see the allegations made in the complaint. In the absence of any finding recorded by the High Court on this 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 material question, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
16.The second error is that the High Court in para 6 held that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of occurrence.
17.In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) because whether there are contradictions or/and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence and the same can be gone into by the Judicial Magistrate during trial when the entire evidence is adduced by the parties.
That stage is yet to come in this case.”
12. It is contended that the defacto complainant has made out the case that the goods in consignment No.SAK/040/18-2019 has been delivered to the buyer without proper documents and for such delivery, the accused persons have conspired with the buyer to cause illegal loss to the defacto complainant and illegal gain to the buyer. The delivery effected not based on the legal document. Thus, the goods entrusted to M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited has been misappropriated based on illegally 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 fabricated and forged documents. Hence, the ingredients of criminal offence is prima faciely made out and full-fledged investigation is required to find out the truth.
13. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.30986 of 2019, the representatives of M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited had admitted the agreement between them and the defacto complainant in the arbitration proceedings initiated by them before the High Court of Madras in Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) No.314 of 2021. While so, they are estopped from justifying their act of delivering the goods to the buyer based on the non- negotiable Way Bill. While the provisions of Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 and the terms and conditions of the transactions, as per the Bill of Lading mandates, the goods shall be delivered only on surrendering of original documents of House Bill of Lading, the very fact that without House Bill of Lading, the consignment delivered to M/s Allison Garments Prodaction LLC, is an offence of breach of trust and cheating. 16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
14. Admittedly, the delivery was effected without surrendering the Master Bill of Lading. The documents which were used for taking delivery are fraudulently forged and fabricated documents and therefore, the four steps test laid down in Rajiv Thapar and others v. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in [2013 (3) SCC 330] is fully satisfied to proceed with the trial. The non-negotiable way bill relied upon by the accused persons for taking delivery of the goods illegal is a dubious document to get delivery of the goods. It is contrary to the terms of the contract fabricated with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant. Thus, the intention to cheat can be seen from the inception to attract Section 420 IPC. Even otherwise, whether they had any intention to cheat at the inception or entertained the intention in the course of the transaction or matter for trial. Pendency of Civil Suit is not a bar for initiating criminal prosecution. For the said purpose, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jagadish v. Udhya Kumar and others reported in 2020 (4) SCC 552 and Kriti Saraf v. State of NCT Delhi and another reported in [CDJ 2021 (SC) 199] are relied on by the defacto complainant.
17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
15. Few more judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are also relied by the defacto complainant to emphasis the point that availability of the civil remedy is not a ground to quash the First Information Report and omission of certain facts in the First Information Report is not a ground to quash the entire First Information Report, when the allegations made in the First Information Report is sufficient to take for investigation.
16. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.30986 of 2019 and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16314 of 2020 and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State. Perused the records.
17. The specific case of the defacto complainant as said in the complaint is that the defacto complainant is the supplier and one M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC, Moscow is the buyer. The dispute is in connection with delivery of consignment without valid document namely, 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 House Bill of Lading dated 08.02.2019 and 09.03.2019. The first Bill of Lading is in respect of consignment no. SAK/040/18-2019. The goods were to be delivered to M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC in Russia. In the corresponding waybill for the said consignment it is mentioned as non- negotiable. The shipper name is mentioned as M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited and the notify party as Credo Trans Limited. It is specifically mentioned that the carrier cannot be held responsible for failure to notify. The carrier of the consignment is one CMA CGM S.A. In the said waybill, it is specifically stated that the delivery will be only on payment of all freight charges to the named consignee or any third party nominated by the consignee by written instruction to the carrier or his agent, unless shipper instructs, otherwise prior to delivery. Except this one condition there is no other specific clause which says that delivery will be subject to the payment of the goods value. Therefore, the shipper M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited having handed over the goods to the carrier CMA CGM S.A., with the invoice Waybill Non-negotiable generated by CMA CGM, the same has been used to deliver the goods to the consignee named in the waybill. 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
18. The Bill of Lading Act, 1985 and the Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act, 1993 are the law in specific apply in respect of the transaction in this kind. Under the Multimodal Transportation Goods Act, 'delivery' in the case of a non-negotiable multimodal transport document is defined as “delivering of the consignment to, or placing the consignment at the disposal of, the consignee or any person authorised by the consignee to accept the delivery of the consignment on his behalf. In the present case, it is alleged that the goods has been delivered to consignee M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC at Russia by carrier at the instance of shipper. When there is no specific instructions or clause in these documents that the goods cannot be delivered to the consignee unless payment is made, there cannot be an element of cheating or breach of trust cannot be inferred.
19. It is contended by the defacto complainant that the waybill non-negotiable is a forged document. If it is so, the said document has been 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 singed by the representative of the carrier viz., CMA CGM S.A, but no allegation is made against them in the complaint. Credo Trans Limited is the notify party as per the waybill non-negotiable. They are also not named as accused. There is also no records to show CMA CGM SA disowning the Way Bill generated in their name.
20. According to the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, the copies of the e-mail communications were sent to these petitioners and they have admitted their responsibility in the transaction. Therefore, they cannot plead that there is no privity of contract.
21. However, from the complaint when read as whole and the communications relied by the complainant, it could be seen that the goods were delivered in the normal course between the month of February and March. The defacto complainant has received a part of the payment and he himself through e-mail has agreed to give 50% concession of the cost. While so, after allowing to deliver the goods to the buyer, without receiving 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 the payment in full and accepting substantial payment subsequently, the complaint has been given belatedly, as if he was cheated based on the fabricated documents. If so cheated why no allegation is made against the author of the alleged fabricated document i.e. CMA CGM S.A carrier remains open. It is also to be noted that the alleged instructions by the defacto complainant to the Forwarding Agent namely, M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited that the delivery should not be made without House Bill of Lading, is not supported by any document. Further, even before he instructed the freight Forwarding Agent to hold the delivery, the consignment relates to SAK/040/18-2019 has already been delivered. The second consignment related to SAK/044/18-2019. This consingment was promptly retained but after re-export of cargo in SAK/044, it appears that the defacto complainant has not paid the freight charges. The said dispute is the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings initiated by M/s MGH Logistics Private Limited.
22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
22. As far as the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.16314 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner contends, he is not holding any position in M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC. The extract of the registration maintained in the Russia, the country, in which the buyer company is registered, is produced by the petitioner. In the said extract, the Director of M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC is one Aleksandr Iosifivich. When the petitioner, who is arrayed as the first accused is able to show that he is not the Director of M/s Allison Garments Prodactions LLC and the complaint against him describing him as the Director of the company is therefore per se illegal and an abuse of due process of law, the defacto complainant cannot contend that these are the matters for trial and the petitioner has to prove his innocence in the trial. While the complaint on the face of it is not sustainable and found, it is contrary to the fact, then the accused cannot be forced to face the ordeal of trial. 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
23. This Court holds, the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed for multiple reasons like;
(i) the dispute between the defacto complainant and its buyer is primarily civil in nature.
(ii)The Forwarding Agent had instituted arbitration proceedings for non-payment of freight charges and for other damages.
(iii)No prima facie case is made out by the defacto complainant that the delivery of the consignment should be only on production of House Bill of Lading. Admittedly, substantial portion of the consignment value had been received by the defacto complainant and there is dispute regarding the quality of goods supplied.
24/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020
24. Therefore, this Court finds that the criminal complaint under investigation in the First Information Report dated 05.11.2019 is liable to be quashed, on the ground it has been initiated with mala fide intention to pressurise the accused persons to settle the civil dispute.
25. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The First Information Report in Crime No.17 of 2019 on the file of the 1 st respondent dated 05.11.2019 is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
16.08.2022 Index:yes Speaking order/non speaking order ari To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City.
2.The Head Constable, Central Crime Branch, Tiruppur City.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari Delivery Common order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.30986 of 2019 and 16314 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.Nos.16862 of 2019 and 6253 of 2020 16.08.2022 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis