Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Filling Service Thr. Director/ ... vs R.D. Pawar Owner Girna Unity Infra ... on 4 October, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 4th OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 45341 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
OM FILLING SERVICE THROUGH DIRECTOR/
PROPRIETOR RAMNARESH SHARMA S/O MATADEEN
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O RAMANUJ
NAGAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI UPENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. R.D. PAWAR, OWNER GIRNA UNITY INFRA PROJECT
PVT. LTD. R/O SHIVNERI PLOT NO 43-A MAHATMA
NAGAR NASIK (MAHARASHTRA)
2. NAGESH PANDEY, PROJECT HEAD GIRNA UNITY
INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD R/O RAM PLAZA, NAV
SHAKTI CHOWK, GAYNA NAGAR, NASIK
(MAHARASHTRA)
3. AVINASH GUNDE, PROJECT HEAD, GIRNA UNITY
INFRA PROJECT PVT. LTD R/O PUSHPANJALI
APARTMENT, PRABHADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
4. MADHAV NANDKARNI, CHIEF ACCOUNT OFFICER,
PAYMENT TRANSFER OM FILLING SERVICE UNITY
INFRA PROJECT LTD. R/O PUSHPANJALI
APARTMENT, PRABHADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DINESH SAVITA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
2
ORDER
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the orders passed by the Revisional Court (dated 31-07-2021) as well as the Magistrate Court (dated 25-02-2016) whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of rejection of private complaint, has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that the complainant is a Petrol Pump owner in the name of Om Filling Service situate at A.B. Road, Panihar District Gwalior and respondents are contractors involved in construction activities. Since respondents were to construct canal in the Gwalior region, therefore, they entered into an agreement with the petitioner for supply of petroleum products. After entering into agreement, respondents issued purchase order dated 07-03-2012 and thereafter petitioner started supplying petroleum products to the respondents. Intermittently respondents made some payments for such supply of the said petroleum products to the petitioner but an amount of Rs.16,76,696/- was remained outstanding on the respondents. Despite several requests, since amounts has not been paid, therefore, petitioner personally met respondents but they abused and misbehaved with the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner preferred a private complaint before the Magistrate concerned.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that despite there being cognizable offence committed against the petitioner, learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance against the respondents and dismissed the prayer of petitioner for registration of case against the respondents. On revision, learned revisional Court also 3 without considering the material aspects of the matter, dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard.
5. The case in hand is having trappings of civil dispute. Perusal of record indicates that petitioner wants recovery of the amount of petroleum products supplied by him to the respondents through an agreement executed between them. In nutshell petitioner wants conversion of civil dispute into criminal liability. Petitioner has remedy somewhere else rather than criminal case.
6. Under an agreement executed between the parties, petitioner supplied petroleum products to the respondents and if any amount is outstanding, then petitioner has other remedy rather than adopting the procedure of criminal case. This Court in the case of Shrichand Bhau & Anr. Vs. The State of M.P. & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2077 discussed the issue involved in the present case in relation to conversion of civil dispute into criminal case and deprecated such tricks and tactics adopted by the complainant.
7. In Indian Oil Corpn. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others, (2006) 6 SCC 736, the Apex Court not only deprecated such practice but also suggested steps which can be taken by the Courts to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of parties especially to exercise power under Section 250 Cr.P.C. more frequently, where Courts discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Such view has also been adopted by the Apex Court in the case of Mukul Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. 2020 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) SC 228, Lalmuni Devi Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 2 SCC 17, Prem 4 Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and another (2020) 20 SCC 623 and Rajib Ranjan Vs. Vijaykumar 2015 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 559.
8. Beside this, both the Courts below considered each and every aspects of the matter and concluded against the petitioner finding the trappings of civil dispute. Petitioner has other remedy for recovery of his alleged amount outstanding on the respondents for which criminal case cannot be the only remedy available to the petitioner.
9. In view of the factual matrix involved in the case and the legal position, this Court is of the considered view that no case for interference is made out and both the Courts below did not commit any error in dismissing the private complaint of petitioner. Accordingly, the petition preferred by the petitioner sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
Anil* JUDGE
ANIL
Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
KUMAR
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=8512f40a1a9eaa50b6802d068b
51dae27e84c266b09d283f0799e67cdc7d
CHAURA
f50f,
pseudonym=F7E569EA2A8955818DF870
B0C50764B46C526E80,
serialNumber=EC534CBB3B245F050119F
SIYA
06F4A296DD83C765A1E2ACC6EC7D8BD
8CBCC9C2446E, cn=ANIL KUMAR
CHAURASIYA
Date: 2023.10.05 19:56:26 +05'30'