Delhi District Court
Corporation India. The Allegations Of vs . on 16 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03
(PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision no. 56/15
UID No.02406R0321242015
M/S INDCON BOILERS LTD.
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Vinod Sharma
7172, New DLF Industrial Area
Faridabad, Haryana 121003
.......Complainant
Vs.
1. Kazya Suzuki
Authorized Representative/Signatory
M/S Maeda Corporation India
401,402, 4th Floor DLF South Court
Saket, New Delhi .....Accused no.1
2. Atsushi Haraki
Authorized Representative/Signatory
M/S Maeda Corporation India
401,402, 4th Floor DLF South Court
Saket, New Delhi .... Accused no.2
3. Sanjeev Kumar
Office Bearers/Authorized Representative
M/S Maeda Corporation India
401,402, 4th Floor DLF South Court
Saket, New Delhi .....Accused no.3
CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 1 of 8
4. Robin Kumar
Office Bearers/Authorized Representative
M/S Maeda Corporation India
401,402, 4th Floor DLF South Court
Saket, New Delhi ...... Accused no.4
Date of filing of revision : 05.10.2015
Date of allocation : 06.10.2015
Arguments concluded on : 04.12.2015
Date of order : 16.12.2015
Criminal revision petition under section 397 Cr.PC, 1976
for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2015 passed by Ld.
ACMM, South, Saket Courts inter alia dismissing the
complaint no.73/1/14 filed under section 156 (3) Cr.PC
which was treated as complaint under section 2 (d) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
ORDER
1. The present controversy pertains to purchase orders bearing no. MC/YIPLPO099/13 and MC/YIPLPO 099A/13 dated 12.06.2013 placed by respondents with the complainant to supply, fit and install pipe/insulator and its accessories at the site of Yokohama India Project (Japanese client of M/s Maeda Corporation (India)), PG office, Plot no.1, Sector48, Bahadur Ind Estate, HSIIDC Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar, Haryana. The respondents are officials/ARs/signatories of M/s Maeda CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 2 of 8 Corporation India. The allegations of revisionist complainant is that by making false representation and false assurance of timely payments, the respondents fraudulently and dishonestly induced it to enter into a contract with them. It is averred that to deceive and cheat the complainant company, the respondents have illegally and wrongfully withheld the payments for the work done by the complainant company It is further alleged that the respondents in connivance with each other also misled the officials of the concerned government department by forging and fabricating certain documents to establish that the job work was done by some 3rd party instead of the complainant company. The complainant accordingly prayed for summoning of respondents for the offences U/S 406, 420 & 120B IPC.
2. Vide the impugned order dated 19.08.2015, Ld. ACMM, South District, Saket dismissed the complaint by the revisionistcomplainant u/s 203 Cr.PC.
3. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground that ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate and take into consideration all the relevant documents submitted by the complainant. Further, it has not been considered that placing of a purchase order by M/s Maeda Corporation CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 3 of 8 (India) with the complainant company and acting upon it itself constitutes a valid contract. Since the two purchase orders were placed on record, ld. Trial Court erred in observing that the complainant did not place any contract on record.
4. I have heard the rival contentions and have perused the record carefully including the TCR as well as the written arguments filed by the petitioner.
5. The averments in the complaint as well as the contents of the documents relied upon by it lead to one irresistible conclusion that the controversy between the parties pertains to nonpayment of the full amount by the respondent towards the work claimed to have been completed by the revisionistcomplainant.
6. In the application dated 29.04.2014 written by the revisionistcomplainant and addressed to SHO, PS Saket, New Delhi, it has been categorically mentioned:
" That Maeda Corporation (India) has only made a part payment of Rs.93,68,735/ leaving a balance of Rs.45,49,538/and damages".
Grievance of the complainant pertains to this unpaid amount.
7. Ld. Counsel for the revisionistcomplainant has drawn the attention of the Court to a letter bearing CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 4 of 8 correspondence no. FBD/2437 dated 30.01.2014 written by Chief Inspector of Boilers, Haryana to M/s Yokohama India Private Limited. This letter reads as follows: "Subject: Permission for erection of boiler and steam pipe line.
Reference to your letter dated 19.9.13 in which you had awarded the erection of boiler to M/S Indcon Boilers Limited, Faridabad. Now vide letter dated 14.1.14, you have awarded the erection of boiler and steam pipe line to M/s Heat max Engineering Co., Bahadurgarh through M/s Omega Corporation.
You are requested to attend this office alongwith representative of M/S Indcon Boilers Limited, Faridabad, Heat Max Engineering Co., Bahadurgarh and Omega Corporation to resolve the issue.
Chief Inspector of Boilers Haryana"
8. It has been argued that the abovementioned correspondence shows that the respondents had furnished false documents to establish before the concerned Authority that the work of erection of boilers was not completed by the complainant but by some third company (M/s Heat Max Engineering Co.). It is alleged that the respondents had fabricated such CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 5 of 8 documents to cause wrongful loss of the payment due to the complainant towards the work done. The Court does not agree with this argument of the revisionist. The above said letter must be read alongwith the letter dated 19.09.2013 written by M/S Yokohama India Pvt. Ltd., vide which M/s Yokohama has clarified that the IBR boilers were purchased from Indicon Boilers (revisionistcomplainant). These two correspondences when read together do not constitute any offence. The complainant has failed to specify as to what documents were fabricated by the respondents to deprive it of its lawful dues.
9. It is noted that for the recovery of the balance amount including damages, the plaintiff already filed a civil suit in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi bearing CS (OS) no.1752/2015. It is also noted that vide legal notice dated 30.07.2014, the company M/s Maeda Corporation Yokohama Project office has also claimed an amount of Rs.35,35,833/ for the cost incurred by it in respect of the two purchase orders in question.
10. The Court also does not find any merit in the argument of the revisionistcomplainant that an investigation u/s 202 Cr.PC should have been directed by Ld. Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. On one hand, CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 6 of 8 the revisionist claims to have all the plenary documentary evidence to prove connivance of accused persons in alleged forgery and fabrication, on the other it has been argued that the evidence to be collected to establish the guilt of the accused is beyond the reach of the complainant.
11. The Court is convinced that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature and no element of cheating, forgery or criminal breach of trust has been established by the complainant. While aptly appreciating the circumstances of the case, ld. Trial Court has rightly relied upon :
• Rama Swami Nadar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 56.
• Joseph Salvaraj Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 2011 SC 2258.
• Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & ors. Vs State of Bihar & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2341. • Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr Vs. State of Uttarachal & Ors., 2008 AIR (SC) 251. • Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2005) 10 SCC 336.
CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 7 of 8 • Chandran Ratna Swami & Anr. Vs. K.C Palani Samy & Anr., 2013 AIR (SCW) 2918.
• Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr Vs. State of Uttarachanal & ors., 2008 AIR (SC) 251 and Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2010 AIR (SCW) 405. • Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr Vs. S.J Magistrate & Ors reported in VI (1998) SLT 102. • Parminder Jeet Singh Vs. Kuljit Singh reported in 1 (2009) DLT (Crl) 730.
12. In view of above discussion, the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
13. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015.
(Vrinda Kumari) ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI3), South, Saket Court New Delhi CR No.56/15 16.12.2015 Page no. 8 of 8