Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On 11-10-2001, M/s. Videocon Export Limited, the 2nd respondent herein, booked certain goods with the Company, for being transported from Ahmednagar to Hyderabad and Vijayawada under Consignment Nos. 0099708 and 0099709. The goods were valued at Rs. 19,61,007/-. On 13-10-2001, the Company addressed letter to the 2nd respondent, stating that the sister concerns of the latter, by name M/s.Videocon International Limited and M/s. Videocon Appliances Limited are due a sum of Rs. 6,96,549/- and till the said amounts are paid, the goods entrusted to it on 11-10-2001 shall be held under mortgage and lien. It was intimated therein that the goods will be released to the 2nd respondent only after payment of the dues referred to above. On receipt of this letter, the 2nd respondent submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Police Control Room, Hyderabad, on 18-10-2001, alleging that the petitioners have committed offence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC.

4. The petitioners contend that the FIR does not disclose any ingredients of offence under Sections 407 and 420 of IPC and, even if the contents are taken on their face value, at the most, they can disclose a civil liability. With this, and other ancillary submissions, they seek the relief of quashing of the FIR.

5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated therein that it has nothing to do with M/s,Videocon International Limited and M/s. Videocon Appliances Limited and that the 2nd respondent is a separate Corporate entity. It is pleaded that the petitioners do not dispute the factum of having been entrusted with the goods and once they are not delivered to the consignee, offence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC can be said to have been committed.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri Milind Gokhale, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the admissions contained in the letter dated 13-10-2001 addressed by the Company, which is the basis for submission of the complaint by the 2nd respondent constitute the elements and ingredients of offence under Sections 407 and 420 IPC. They submit that the questions as to whether the 2nd respondent and the other two companies have any thing in common and whether there was any justification for the petitioners to withhold the goods entrusted to them by the 2nd respondent, have to be investigated and established during the trial. They submit that quashing of FIR, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is a rare phenomenon and the present case does not provide for such an occasion.

"407. Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc. :--Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

18. If the contents of the complaint and Section 407 IPC are read together, it cannot be said that the FIR is absolutely without basis. It is once again to be borne in mind that this Court cannot undertake enquiry into the correctness or otherwise of the allegations at this stage. The limited context and purpose for which this observation is made; is that the very basis for quashing an FIR in a writ petition is whether an offence can be said to have been committed, if the allegations contained in the FIR are to be taken as true. This Court feels that if the contents of the FIR are taken on their face value, they fit into the circumstances provided for under Section 407 IPC. Any further discussion on this aspect is not only prone to render this judgment verbose, but is also likely to have its effect on the further proceedings.