Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

17. It is in the background of these principles, that the present case needs to be examined. As observed earlier, the letter dated 13-10-2001 addressed by the Company constituted the basis for submission of the complaint by the 2nd respondent. In this letter, the factum of the goods entrusted by the petitioner for transport has been admitted- It was insisted that fill the dues of transport charges payable by the two other companies (sister concerns) are cleared, the goods will be held under mortgage and lien. In the FIR, the complaint dated 18-10-2001 submitted by the 2nd respondent is extracted as it is. The allegations in the FIR is that the goods entrusted to the Company by the 2nd respondent for transport were wrongfully withheld. The 2nd respondent enclosed the letter dated 13-10-2001 along with the complaint. From a reading of this letter, it emerges that the (Company) petitioners have admitted the factum of receiving goods from the 2nd respondent for transport and withholding of the same. Section 407 IPC deals specifically with the situation. It reads as under:

"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.

21. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that, even in a case where the consignor is due to pay transport charges, a transporter cannot have a lien on the goods entrusted to it. Contending that the 2nd respondent is not due any transport charges and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sh. Mahavir Prashad Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2000 (2) ALD (Crl.) 838 (SC), learned Counsel submits that in the context of the undisputed facts borne out by letter dated 13-10-2001 addressed by the DRS Transport to the petitioner, the offence under Section 407 IPC can be said to have been committed. The Supreme Court held in that case, that a transporter cannot withhold the goods even as lien over the dues from the consignor. The question as to whether necessary facts exist in the present case for application of the said ratio needs to be examined during the trial. This Court cannot express any opinion on that aspect, particularly, at this stage.