Chattisgarh High Court
Harinath Khushwaha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRMP No. 1263 of 2020
Harinath Khushwaha Versus State of Chhattisgarh and another
06.04.2022 Mr. Aman Saxena, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer, for the State.
Mr. Arham Siddiqui, counsel for respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that KPCL awarded contract to KPTL for carrying out the foundation work. The petitioner was Deputy General Manager in the KPTL. KPTL in turn gave the subcontract to one Abdul Rapheek and Abdul Rapheek appointed the complainant Shakeel Baeg to be his Site-Supervisor. It is contended that a complaint was made that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs has not been paid by the Company despite the allotted work was carried out by respondent no.2, thereby offence of cheating has been committed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that looking to the nature of work which was assigned to Shakeel Baeg who is complainant even if the prosecution version is accepted, it would fall completely within the domain of the commercial transaction and if the amount as agreed is not paid, no criminality can be attached. Therefore, the effect and operation of Charge Sheet No. 52/2020 dated 12.07.2020 arising out of Crime No.99/2018 which is pending before the JMFC, Wadrafnagar, Distt. Balrampur be stayed.
Per contra, learned State Counsel as also learned counsel for respondent no.2 refers to the letter dated 12.01.2012 and would submit that by false assurance the project work was allotted to the present complainant/respondent no.2 and thereafter on bona-fide faith the work was carried out and after completion of work, the request was made for clearing the dues but the amount was not paid, therefore, the non-payment would amount to cheating as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vijayander Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 389.
The letter dated 12.01.2012 would show that Shakeel Baeg was permitted to take cement, reinforcement steel and Template from store incharge to carry out the project work which was issued under the letter-head of Kalpataru Power Transmission Limited. In the FIR, the company has not been arrayed as a party/respondent. Therefore, prima facie reading of FIR would show that it is in the nature of commercial transaction.
Having considered the same and since it has been stated that the proceedings before the trial Court was in a stand-still mode due to pandemic COVID situation and further considering the documents attached and facts situation of the case, it is directed that the effect and operation of Charge Sheet no.52 of 2020 filed before the Court below arising out of Crime No.99/2018 registered at Police Station Raghunath Nagar shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
List it for final hearing after four weeks.
Cc as per rules.
Rao Sd/-
GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE