Jharkhand High Court
Ramesh Iyer vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 20 January, 2016
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1054 of 2007
---
Ramesh Iyer son of Sri Ganesh Iyer, Managing Director, Mahindra &
Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Gateway Building, Appolo
Bandar, Mumbai, Maharashtra ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Rajendra Prasad Yadav son of Late Ramanand Yadav, resident of
42/1/7, Road No. 6, Bagbera Housing Colony, P.O. and P.S. - Bagbera, Jamshedpur, District - Singhbhum East ... ... Opp. Parties
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2 : None
---
09/20.01.2016 Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 inspite of valid service of notice.
2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 699 of 2005 including the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by Smt. Kusum Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. A complaint case was instituted by one Rajendra Prasad Yadav (opposite party No. 2) wherein it was alleged that there was an agreement between the accused persons including the petitioner and the complainant for purchase/sell of tractor 275 DI of Mahindra and Mahindra made on hire purchase and according to the said agreement the complainant had handed over 35 cheques to the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons had assured the complainant that they would return one cheque after the other to the complainant on payment of installment against the financed amount for the said transaction.
4. Allegation has also been made that though the complainant used to regularly pay installments to the accused persons -2- but the accused persons with a view to extort money from the complainant had withheld all the cheques which became apparent after the complainant was served with a notice of a criminal case instituted against him by accused No. 5 who is also a colleague of the petitioner and the accused No. 2 to 4.
5. Upon enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the witnesses cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamshedpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of the complaint petition do not reveal any offence which can be said to be made out against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services having its office at Mumbai in Maharashtra and it is totally absurd to claim that the petitioner along with other accused persons had come to the branch office in Jamshedpur and has finalized the deal. Learned counsel further submits that since some amount was not paid by the complainant in terms of the agreement he was directed to do so on which the complainant had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,05,753/- dated 03.04.2004 bearing Cheque No. 153130. However, the cheque which was issued by the complainant was got dishonored and subsequently the accused no. 5 had instituted a compliant case at Bhopal in Complaint Case No. 11537 of 2006. Learned counsel submits that as a retaliation to the complaint case instituted by the accused no. 5 the present complaint case has been instituted. It has, therefore, been submitted that apart from the fact that no case is made out from a bare reading of the complaint petition the institution of the compliant case itself is tainted with malice and is a malafide act on the part of the complainant. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Otheres vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
-3-7. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the complainant was induced by the petitioner and other accused persons to give the cheques and having connived with each other the accused persons have committed a criminal breach of trust.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and the allegations which have been made in the complaint petition stems from a tractor taken on hire purchase by the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that prior to institution of the complaint case by the opposite party No. 2 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. through the accused no. 5, Rahul Dutta, had instituted a complaint case at Bhopal with respect to the same transaction wherein the cheque issued by the complainant had got dishonored and immediately, thereafter, a complaint case being C /1 Case No. 699 of 2005 was instituted by the complainant against Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. as well as its officials. The complaint petition as has been indicated above does not disclose any criminal offence alleged against the petitioner. The complainant has in his petition mentioned about the institution of the complaint case at Bhopal against the petitioner and from the complaint petition it can be deciphered that the same was a retaliatory measure taken by the complainant against the petitioner and the other accused persons. In the case of State of Haryana and Otheres vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (Supra), the various categories of cases in which this Court can exercise in its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been delineated and the same is reproduced hereinunder:-
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised -4- either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
9. As has been discussed above and from perusal of the complaint petition there does not reveal any mens rea or criminal intention on the part of the of the petitioners. Such allegations do not prima facie constitute a case against the petitioner. Apart from the same the case appears to be manifestly intended with malice since the present complaint case had been instituted as a counter blast to the complaint case instituted against the complainant for the offences -5- punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Applying the ratio as has been demarcated in the paragraph 102 in the Case of in the case of State of Haryana and Otheres vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (Supra) continuation of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the Court.
10. Accordingly, having merit in this case, the same is allowed and entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 699 of 2005 including the order dated 02.08.2005 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Umesh/-