Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdeep Singh vs Shivaji Rao Zombade on 22 January, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-21866 of 2013
.....
Date of decision:22.1.2014
Jagdeep Singh
...Petitioner
v.
Shivaji Rao Zombade
...Respondent
....
(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-23545 of 2013
.....
Narender Kumar
...Petitioner
v.
Shivaji Rao Zombade
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This order will dispose of the above mentioned two criminal miscellaneous petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-21866 of 2013 filed by Jagdeep Singh and Criminal Misc. No.M-23545 of 2013 filed by Narender Kumar under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing Criminal Complaint No.14/11 dated 19.3.2011 for the offences under Sections 380, 411, 120-B Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [2] and 506 IPC (Annexure-P.1) filed by the respondent-complainant and quashing the summoning order dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal vide which the petitioners have been summoned for the offences under Sections 380 and 506 IPC.
The facts have been taken from Criminal Misc. No.M-21866 of 2013, Jagdeep Singh v. Shivaji Rao Zombade. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Jagdeep Singh is the ex-Director and shareholder of M/s Poshak Agrivet Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Company') and the respondent is also the Director and shareholder of the Company. Due to various mal-functioning of the respondent and siphoning out of huge funds from the Company by the respondent, the petitioner disassociated himself from the said Company and resigned from the directorship of the Company on 15.12.2009. However, the respondent was liable to restore back various properties of the petitioner and also to pay huge amounts to the petitioner. It is also stated in the petition that for the settlement of their accounts and business relationship, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, namely, Satish Kumar Goel, Advocate and the Award was passed by the Arbitrator on 10.5.2010, which clearly specify the part to be performed by each party to the arbitral proceedings. As per the Award, petitioner Jagdeep Singh was the owner of the land/premises from where the business of the Company was run and the same had been given on rent/lease to the Company and the same had been agreed to be vacated latest by 31.3.2012 and thereafter, with a further grace period of three months at an enhanced rent, besides, the other properties to be Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [3] transferred in the name of the petitioner along with payment of his entire dues payable by the Company in which the respondent is a Director. The only obligation of the petitioner was to transfer the shares at their face value in his name or in the name of his group persons in favour of the respondent and all the liabilities of the Company were of the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner was still ready to perform his remaining part.
The respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.18105 of 2010 before this High Court on the false allegation that the petitioner and other Director of the Company, Rajinder Gupta, with the help of Police had forcibly dispossessed the respondent from the premises on 26.9.2010 and also levelled false allegations against the petitioner as well as his wife, who is second time sitting MLA from Karnal. The High Court vide order dated 5.10.2010 ordered to maintain status quo. During the pendency of the writ petition, the matter was referred to the said Arbitrator for implementation of Award dated 10.5.2010 in order to resolve the matter and both the parties voluntarily agreed to implement the Award and the minutes of the said meeting dated 28.10.2010.
It is also stated in the petition that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court vide order dated 22.12.2010, also appointed a Local Commissioner, who inspected the factory premises and also inspected the stocks on 23.12.2010 in the presence of the respondent and the entire stocks were video-graphed. The Local Commissioner, who submitted report, stated that there are huge quantities of stocks in the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [4] factory and it will take him a long time to make the inventory. It is stated that all the allegations of theft of stocks are false to the core and no alleged offence has been committed by petitioner Jagdeep Singh. It is also stated in the petition that Civil Writ petition No.18105 of 2010 was disposed of by the High Court on 18.10.2011, in which the respondent was directed to be put in possession of the premises within 24 hours and certain observations were levelled against the petitioner and his wife. It is further stated that firstly the son of the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 10.10.2010 in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate for the offences under Sections 323, 380, 454, 34, 120-B and 506 IPC, alleging that on 26.9.2010, the petitioner and other persons had trespassed into the premises of the firm which is located in the same premises of the Company and further alleged that subsequently came to know from the bankers that the stocks are short to the tune of `20 Lacs and they had been stolen by Rajinder Gupta and other persons and named the petitioner also therein. FIR No.94 dated 1.2.2011 for the offences under Sections 323, 380, 454, 34, 120-B and 506 IPC was registered. However, after detailed investigation, the Police had filed a closure report on 21.3.2012. During the investigation of the said FIR, the respondent filed the present complaint under Sections 380, 411, 120-B and 506 IPC on 19.3.2011 against Rajinder Gupta and 6 other persons and also named the petitioner and his wife. The respondent had falsely stated that the petitioner and his wife reached the factory site on 10.10.2010 and started lifting all the major stocks along with office records of the Company by Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [5] loading in trucks having registration No.HR-45-0036, HR-45-7368 and HR-38-G-6616.
In reply filed by the respondent, he has contested this petition.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that Jagdeep Singh-petitioner has resigned on 15.12.2009. The Award has been passed on 10.5.2010. The FIR regarding the earlier occurrence stated to have been held on 26.9.2010 was registered on the basis of complaint of the son of the respondent, but closure report with regard to the same has been filed. The present respondent filed the private complaint and no offence regarding theft has been made out. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the respondent in the complaint has not alleged any mens rea and to prove the allegation of theft mens rea is to be shown. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is reduction of stock as it has been sold out. It is stated that no allegations regarding theft are there in the complaint.
Whereas the counsel for the respondent contested the quashing petition and argued that there are allegations of theft in the complaint (Annexure-P.1) in para 5.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
From the record, I find that the complaint (Annexure-P.1) has been filed by respondent-Shivaji Rao Zombade, Managing Director, M/s Poshak Agrivet Private Limited against Jagdeep Singh and Narender Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [6] Kumar petitioners along with other persons for the offences under Sections 380, 411, 120-B and 506 IPC. Para 5 of this complaint states that accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Jagdeep Singh and his wife Sumita Singh were watching the proceedings of the High Court from outside and when they came to know about the status quo order of the High Court, they again hatched a criminal conspiracy not only with said `Gunda' elements, but also with local Police using political pressure and reached at the factory site on 10.10.2010 and changed the name board of the Company, which is confirmed by the Bank letter dated 7.10.2010 and also started lifting all the major stock along with office records of the Company by loading in trucks having registration Nos.HR-45-0036, HR-45-7368 and HR-38-G- 6616 noticed by the complainant and other trucks whose number would be disclosed by accused No.1 to 7. It is stated that the raw material/semi finished/finished good lying in the godowns was worth approximately `2 Crores. The stock statement dated 25.9.2010 was handed over to the banker of the Company i.e. Canara Bank, Karnal, to whom the said stock was hypothecated. The officials of the Canara Bank, (bank of the Company) visited the factory site for stock verification and found major stock missing, which is confirmed by their letters dated 10.11.2010 and 18.10.2010. In para 7 of the complaint it is also stated that the complainant received the information of on going theft through his reliable sources and the incident was duly brought to the notice of concerned Police by the son of the complainant, namely, Ujwal Zombade by moving a written complaint along with copy of the order of the High Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [7] Court that the accused persons were taking law into their hands and requested to take legal action against the accused persons, but no action was taken due to the political influence of accused No.2 and 3. In this para, it is also stated that the driver of Smt. Sumita Singh, M.L.A., namely, Narender, accused No.4, was very much present at the premises and playing active role in the incident of theft. All the accused persons not only violated the order of the High Court, but also forcibly and dishonestly took away all stocks and the complainant was threatened to be killed and face dire consequences, if moved any complaint, when the accused persons were contacted in this regard. From the perusal of the complaint itself, in no way, it can be held that there are no allegations regarding theft in the complaint. Similarly, it also cannot be held that there is no mens rea. In the complaint, the complainant is alleging that the articles along with records etc. had been taken away in the trucks. Huge stock amounting to `2 Crores etc. had been taken away specially when the proceedings are pending before the High Court. So, at this stage, it cannot be held that there is no mens rea. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that reduction of stock is on the ground that some of the articles had been sold as per the orders of the High Court, is to be seen/determined after evidence to be produced before the Court. It is an admitted fact that the Arbitrator was appointed and there was dispute between the parties regarding settlement of accounts and distribution of properties etc. The mere fact that petitioner Jagdeep Singh has resigned on 15.12.2009 before the occurrence no where shows that he cannot Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [8] commit the theft or cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 380 IPC on this ground. Even in the inquiry report (Annexure-P.12), it is written that major stock is missing from the premises. The complainant has provided some photographs showing alleged movement of stock by accused No.1 and 4 Rajinder Gupta and Narender Kumar. Only on the ground of the finding of the Inquiry Officer, at this stage, it cannot be held that no offence is made out against the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that eye witnesses have been examined to support the averments of the complainant.
It is settled law that in the quashing petition, the petitioners are to prove that no offence is made out from the averments of the complaint or the complaint is mala fide and misuse/abuse of the process of the Court.
From the perusal of the record, in no way, it can be held that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Rather, the complaint is based on eye witnesses account. There is also no material on record to show that the continuation of the complaint or passing of the summoning order is misuse/abuse of the process of the Court or the complaint is filed with mala fide intention etc. The mere fact that in the earlier FIR, the closure report had been filed, itself is no ground to hold that this complaint is false one. The petitioner Jagdeep Singh's wife Smt. Sumita Singh had remained two times MLA from Karnal. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that under their political pressure, the Police Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. [9] had filed the closure report in that FIR. All these facts are to be determined by the trial Court. At this stage, no ground is made out for quashing the complaint.
Therefore, finding no merit in these petitions, the same are dismissed.
January 22, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.06 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh