Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
O. Sundara Rami Reddy And Ors. vs The Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Oil ... on 10 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994(1)ALT(CRI)513, 1994CRILJ34
ORDER
1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners-accused under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 9 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sullurpet.
2. The first respondent is an apex body at the State level in the three-tier pattern of the co-operative societies, having been established in 1983 to restructure oil seeds production in the State and also to increase and develop the oil seeds farming in some selected districts of the State and Nellore District is one among such districts. In pursuance of the agreement entered into between the parties, a quantity of about 1302 mts. of groundnut pods was carted to the premises of the concerned industries from 3-4-1992 to 26-6-1992 and again on 27-7-1992. According to clauses 3.2 and 3.3 of the agreement the petitioners/accused should arrange for the unloading and storage of stocks in the premises of their industry and according to clauses 3.13 and 3.18 they are also responsible for the safety of the raw material and the finished products. An Area Officer was also posted at Naidupet to oversee, supervise and control the entire process of customs milling and in that task he was assisted by a chemist, who not only analyses the stocks entrusted to the petitioners/accused for custom milling but was also associated with the other aspects of the custom milling operations.
3. While the position stood like that, the petitioners started customs milling of groundnut stocks from 6-4-92 to 24-6-1992 and again on 22-8-1992 and a quantity of 203.49 Mts. of groundnut oil and 30.40052 Mts. of groundnut cake was handed over to the respondent-complainant. It is the case of the complainant that developing a dishonest intention of misappropriating the stocks belonging to the complainant-federation, the accused at first slowed down the customs milling operations and then sold away one of the two expellers used in the custom milling and finally dismantled the oil tubes and delivery pipes thus making a grinding halt to the customs milling operations. On physical verification of the stocks in the aforesaid godowns, conducted by the M.R.O., Naidupet, under the instructions of the Collector, Nellore, the following stocks were found missing, viz., (1) G.N. Kernal 202.931 Mts., (2) G.N. Oil 26.23 Mts., (3) G.N. Cake 47.93 Mts. and (4) empty gunnies 1817 Nos. Thereupon, a complaint was lodged by the Chemist on 1-1-1993 with the Police of Naidupet against the accused for the missing of the stocks alleging that they committed offences like burglary, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation and cheating. As the S.H.O., Naidupet refused to receive the complaint as it is and as he asked the Chemist to give a revised complaint incorporating the offence of criminal breach of trust only, the Chemist revised the complaint mentioning only criminal breach of trust. Thereupon the 2nd respondent received the complaint and prepared the F.I.R. on the basis of the revised complaint. On coming to know of the above facts, the Manager (P&P) of the respondent - Federation on 8-1-1993 gave another complaint incorporating all the offences mentioned above and also included the Area Officer and the Chemist, Naidupet also as accused. Though the second respondent has received the above said complaint from the Manager (P&P) of the respondent-Federation, no action was taken on it and so having no alternative left to him, the complainant filed a private complaint against all the accused.
4. The case of the petitioners is that there is a clause in the agreement entered into between the petitioners and the 1st respondent that if any dispute arises, the same can be referred to an arbitrator. Without exhausting any of the remedies provided in the agreement, the first respondent straight away lodged a complaint before the police and a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sullurpet even though the matter is pending investigation before the second respondent.
In support of their case, the petitioners have relied upon Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows :-
"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence :-
(1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."
It is true that under sub-section (1) of Section 210 it is laid down that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it is made to appear to the Magistrate during the course of inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report from the police officer conducting the investigation. Here, it is not a case where the complainant has suppressed the material facts. At certain times the breach of terms of the contract may give rise to a cause of action for filing a suit and at the same time the acts committed by the accused may also result in filing a complaint before the police or before the Court. Simply because there is an agreement and breach has been committed, it does not mean that the complainant has to file the suit when particularly the facts and circumstances warrants that a suit can be filed before the civil court or a complaint can be filed before the criminal court. The option is left to the complainant. In fact, the grievance of the complainant is that a complaint was originally filed on 1-1-1993 with the police of Naidupet against the accused but it was returned asking the Chemist to give a revised complaint incorporating the offence of Criminal breach of trust only and the Chemist accordingly did. The complainant apprehends that because of the influence managed by the petitioners over the police officials the original complaint was not taken by the police and so the complainant filed the private complaint in the Court. If suppression of the material facts about the filing of a complaint before the police is there, definitely it is for the Court to take note of the said fact. But filing of the complaint by itself is not a ground to throw away the case provided the Court is satisfied that there are grounds to entertain the case. The allegation levelled by the 1st respondent is that the petitioners are very influential people and they managed the police in such a way making them not to take the second complaint. Nowadays it is not uncommon for any one to know the attitude that is being exhibited by the police. Here, it is a case relating to an institution or federation. Nobody can influence the police. On the other hand, it is the case of the 1st respondent-Federation that the petitioners are very influential people and they being local people and they managed the police not to receive the second complaint. When a Federation like the complainant has come out with certain specific facts about missing of stocks etc., and complained about the dishonest intention developed on the part of the petitioners, it is for the trial Court to probe into the matter and find out the truth in it. When the material available in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent prima facie discloses a case which needs deep brobe, it is not desirable for the Court to dismiss the complaint. When there is collusion between the officials of the complainant and the accused and cheating has taken place, definitely it is a matter to be tried by the competent Court. It is true that there are a number of decisions under section 482, Cr.P.C. giving benefit to the accused, wherein in the facts and circumstances of that particular case the Court finds that the proceedings can be quashed. But there, basing on the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the pleas set up by the respective parties which need deep probe, this Court feels that it is not a fit case where the proceedings have to be quashed. In this connection a reference to the decision of my learned brother. Bhaskar Rao. J., reported in G. Lakshmi Basava Poornima v. State of A.P., is necessary which is directly applicable to this case, wherein in the identical facts it was observed thus :
"A combined reading of Sections 190, 200, 202, 204 and 210, Cr.P.C. makes it clear that the Court is competent to take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint irrespective of the fact that a charge sheet is filed by the Police and the offence therein is taken cognizance of. The Court has to independently apply its judicial mind to the contents of the complaint, sworn statements of the complainant and witnesses, if any, examined and then come to a conclusion whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further. Non-application of the judicial mind independently to the said material is against the spirit of law."
I am entirely in agreement with the view expressed by Bhaskar Rao, J. in the above cited decision. The fact that the filing of a suit subsequent to the filing of a complaint cannot be taken into account to quash the proceedings, particularly when this is a matter which requires deep probe. Apprehension in the mind of the complainant that the police may not do justice because of the influence exercised by the accused also at certain times basing on the facts of that particular case may be a ground for entertaining a private complaint. In this case as the original complaint is returned asking the Chemist to include only one section and having been aggrieved by the said acts of the police and also apprehending that the progress of investigation is doubtful, the complainant has filed the impugned complaint before a competent Court which needs deep probe. I feel that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings under section 482, Cr.P.C.
5. The Criminal Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
6. The party is at liberty to file an application under section 210, Cr.P.C. and it is for the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders, as the Section contemplates, after duly taking into account the progress of the investigation, if any.
7. Petition dismissed.