Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parkash Makol And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Misc. No. M- 33629 of 2010 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-33629 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.8.2012.
Ram Parkash Makol and another .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) seeking quashing of order dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioners were charge sheeted under Section 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and order dated 1.6.2010 (Annexure P-2) in Criminal Revision Petitions FIR No. 92 dated 18.9.2001 was registered against the petitioners and others at Police Station Guruharsahai under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The FIR was registered on the allegations that shortage of paddy was found in the year 1995- 96 during checking of M/s Luxmi Industries, Guruharsahai. After through investigation by the investigating agency, challan was presented against the accused. The trial court vide the impugned order dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) ordered framing of the charges against the petitioners under Section 406, 420, 120-B IPC. In para 11 of the impugned order, trial court has held as under:-
"Now coming to the criminal liability of accused D.K.Sahi, Crl. Misc. No. M- 33629 of 2010 (O&M) -2- District Manager and R.P. Makol, Branch Manager, Markfed. Accused D.K.Sahi was posted as District Manager, Markfed, Ferozepur during the year 1995-96 when the paddy was allotted to this firm on behalf of Markfed. The firm M/s Luxmi Industries was defaulter during the year 1994-95. Therefore, the fresh paddy could not have been given to this firm during the year 1995-96. But instead of that the firm M/s Laxmi industries was allotted 19691 bags of common paddy and 41363 bags of fine rice quality of paddy for milling during the year 1995-96. D.K.Sahi had made agreement with the firm on 29.2.1996 at latter stage just to fulfill the record. R.P.Makol was posted as Branch Manager, Markfed at that time. He had connived with millers. The paddy was wrongly allotted to that firm. During physical verification paddy was found short. Therefore, sufficient grounds are made out to frame charge against accused D.K.Sahi, the then District Manager, Markfed, Ferozepur and R.P. Makok Branch Manager, Markfed, Guruharsahai under Sections 406/ 420/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code along with accused Sunil Kumar. "
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred separate revision petitions and the same were dismissed vide the impugned order dated 1.6.2010 (Annexure P-2). The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held as under:-
1. "As the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement and as such no criminal proceedings can be initiated against Crl. Misc. No. M- 33629 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the petitioners. I do not find myself agreed with the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as it has been held by the Hon'ble High Apex Court in case law 'S.W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2002(1) Arb. LR 353 (SC).' That Criminal breach of trust-Arising out of contractual relationship-prosecution-agreement providing for remedy of arbitration. No bar. Merely because there is an arbitration clause in the agreement that cannot prevent criminal prosecution against the accused if an act constituting a criminal offence is made out even prima-facie. Further it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case law 'The Iapalli Raghavaiah Vs. Station House Officer and Others, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 374 (SC)' . That Indian Penal Code, Section 406 Criminal and Civil Proceedings-
Breach of contract-where civil remedy is availed of in disputes arising from a breach of contract, remedy under the criminal law also is not barred, if the allegations also disclose a criminal offence" and even as per settled law, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to examine the evidence minutely. Even a grave suspicion is enough. The Court is required to see whether the allegations against the accused, prima facie appear to be true. At this stage defence of the accused is not required to be considered. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Crl. Misc. No. M- 33629 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Vs. Prafulla Kumar (A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 366) . Further the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sukhdev Singh Vs. Ajaib Singh and others (1991 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 20) has also observed that at the stage of framing of charge, evidence is not be meticulously judged. Only a prima-facie case is required to be seen.
Applying the above principle to the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage it cannot be said that no prima-facie case against the revision petitioners is made out. Specific allegations have been leveled against them. In these circumstances the learned trial court has rightly framed the charge under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC against the revision petitioners. No interference is warranted in the conlcusions drawn by the learned trial court. At the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court is required to see as to whether prima facie a criminal offence has been committed by the accused or not. The trial court has noticed that during the year 1995-96 paddy was allotted to M/s Luxmi Industries for milling on behalf of the Markfed. Since the said firm was a defaulter for the earlier year i.e. 1994-95, fresh paddy could not have been allotted to the said firm. In these circumstances, the petitioners had wrongly allotted paddy to the firm. During physical verification, paddy was found to be short.
In these circumstances, the courts below rightly held that prima facie a case was made out against the petitioners qua commission of criminal offence.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 33629 of 2010 (O&M) -5-
It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioner cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after dismissal of his revision by the Sessions Court as it would amount to a second revision. However, in a case of grave injustice, this Court can interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In the present case, no grave miscarriage of justice has occurred which would warrant interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 16, 2012 Gurpreet