Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. By filing this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, the petitioner sought for quashing, cancellation and setting aside the FIR, dated 01.02.2017 as well as the proceedings/investigations and dropping of all allegations in connection with the CID P.S. Case No.3/2017 (corresponding to G.R. No.1083/2017), under Sections 406/408/420 of the IPC.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s. Tea Mech (India) (in short 'the Tea Mech'), which is engaged in business of manufacture and supply of engineering goods and processing machinery for tea, sesame, nuts, grains industries. The petitioner is also working as a Managing Agent for logistics in grain based distillery.

4. M/s. Brahmaputra Biochem Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'the BBPL'), having its registered office at Jaipur and corporate office at Mumbai, had entered into a business relationship with Tea Mech, and to carry on such business relation, a Contract/Agreement of Managing Agency was entered between the BBPL and Tea Mech on 16.01.2015, containing various terms and conditions.

5. The BBPL independently placed order along with attached commodity trade agreement with various suppliers and traders after negotiation, agreement and fixation of price, which facilitated by the petitioner. The payments were effected by the BBPL to the suppliers and traders. No payment towards purchase of grains against purchase orders were ever made to Tea Mech Company/the petitioner Company. According to the petitioner, Tea Mech had outstanding dues recoverable from BBPL in pursuance of the said agreement and on account of and for managing the grain, handling and logistics, Tea Mech sent letter to the BBPL, claiming Rs. 84,64,998/-, dated 05.09.2016 (vide Annexure-3) and repeatedly requested to pay the outstanding dues, but they never bothered to reply to the said letter, although verbally made request for time to arrange the money. In the backdrop, the business transactions between the parties being purely commercial in nature and during existence of agreement, without resorting to any dispute resolution in terms of the said agreement, after a long lapse of time, BBPL suddenly filed an FIR, dated 18.07.2017, with CID, Assam, which has been registered as CID PS Case No. 3/2017, dated 01.02.2017, under Sections 406/408/420 IPC. It is submitted that as has been mentioned in the FIR, BBPL never asked for any money or dues payable to BBPL by the petitioner or had shown any intention to terminate the agreement. The FIR was dated 18.01.2017, but registered on 01.02.2017 and suddenly, on 06.02.2017, petitioner received a letter from the BBPL, making a counter claim of Rs. 1,36,97,352/- from the petitioner, contending that there is no any outstanding dues of Rs. 84,64,998/-, claimed by the petitioner, with an intention to defraud the petitioner by such belated reply, which is nothing but an afterthought.

8. Thus, it is contended that allegations in the FIR do not constitute any ingredient of the offence alleged. Furthermore, in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, criminal proceeding is not maintainable and it has been filed mala fide by the informant, with a view to harass the petitioner and same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. Without disputing the fact that both the parties has entered into an agreement as averred by the petitioner's side, the informant/respondent no.2 in his written objection submitted that both the criminal and civil remedy can be pursued in above situation and as a matter of fact they are not mutually exclusive but co-extensive. It contends that merely because a civil remedy is available a criminal prosecution is not completely barred. It is submitted that there is material in the instant case to proceed against the accused petitioner under section 406/408 and 420 IPC. The various terms and conditions of the agreement has been referred by the respondent no.2 and course of action that have undertaken since the day of execution of the agreement between the parties on 16.01.2015 and the transaction in this regard in detail, (for the sake of brevity all details is not narrated here). Respondent, however, denied that they never replied the letter dated 05.09.2016 (claiming certain amount as indicated above).

16. It is stated that at the office cum residence of Ajay Haldia, one of the member of M/S Brahmaputra Biochem Pvt. Ltd. namely Sri Arjun Arora arrived at the office for identification of accused Sri Ajay Haldia and both of them i.e. Ajay Haldia and Arjun Arora had a brief discussion between them. It is stated that the CID team identified themselves before the petitioner and the team was assisted by police personnel of local police station. Further, it is contended that both criminal proceeding and civil proceeding can proceed simultaneously if there is any ingredients of the criminal offence and whether there is any ingredients or not it can be ascertained only after thorough investigation of the case. Here in this case, the investigation could not progress further due to the stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The object of the criminal jurisprudence is to punish the offender, who commits any offence against any persons, property or the state. Pendency of civil matter or availability of civil remedies is not a bar for initiating criminal proceeding. Both the proceeding can run simultaneously and parallely. FIR of the CID P.S. case No.07/2017 prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence under Section 406/408/420 IPC. There is no abuse of process if the investigation of the case is allowed to progress. Hence, invoking of Section 482 CrPC by this Hon'ble Court is not called for at this stage.