I-T3.' ' --. « Si}. {V'i<L-iyanath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS 'THE 15?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2008
BEFORE
THE HOEVBLE MR. JUSTICE. H5; N'%GA;?vIOH;%'£$%_jf1!AS:.:: .
CRHHNAL PETI'ITI{}N '1A393;2§Aejs 4' ' 1' V
BETWEEN I
--................ ---------------- Iuuw
1. EH33. TaI1('}fndia}Leg.istic-5 Pvt Ltd _ V
{Formerly knmvn as Sembéerp LogVistiéi:sL«. jé
India Pvt Ltd.) _ ; "
A company incolporated undex-'.t}:1c " _ . ._ _ __
provisions of the Indian Canipaniss V.r'mt_.;'.L IE-'5i6_ & " '
having its Regd. £f3ffi;:s at [£1 Fieqt;
N0. 51, EvI011i_§té.;:h §;_g;m';e,
Chennai -« 690 i':_(}_3,'*~'
Rap. By its 1\z:i§'ij:ggiiig*.;£)iré'ctQr-
N31561: Che. V
2. S21. Nei$Car_1 C310 ' ._
Sic. Cher Chan Chas ._
Agcjd -abxeut S8 gsiarsw "
. 35:22. 'f_en}:ara$Warlu
'9?xg6ti abqut ~53 ~ye':grs
' V V . 4. AI133fia E3af)9o
'W33. gum: Bzibu
Ag¢c1~~.ab.g; Er' "
Sugajplnf R933
Gréésatsg Naida, Uttar Ftaaesh
. ., . VI-3Z'avin"g its Branch Office at
' '$39, 933 fiafaxxsirzn
A .§"agi,'Eéxng.ala:>rs -- 2?. Rcspendents
V .S}2j?é:£t:A}9ra.§ad, Adm, fer R-1-';
AV. ikgzfiaigrisnna, HCGP, for R4)
M Cr1'mir1aIPetitian is filed um: seem; 432 (§i'.r.P.C. with a
-.fi:'"éye:'§t0 quash the Fast hzfamnation Repor: dated 2si£,0L20G8 in Crime
-?5?(}."'i9E2(}£}8 and etc.
This Criminai Petition Having been heard and reserved far orders,
.. this day, }§fi.Gfi..E%:IGE%:'.}E DAS J prancamccd the fciimvizzg
'fig/JV
regular basis. On lI.{)2.20i}7 in tha reconcifiatien af stat:-ks 126 pieces
were founé shert at the and 0f first petitioner campany. Again at the
request of first petitioner company recenciiiatian cf steak was donfien
28,02,206? and found that them was at shortage sf material fyfgtttiiéti --u;$1t. ..
Rs.27,4~8,S7=$f-. Suhsequentty the first petitioner and 'E316 M
respondent entered into variants c01'r€:spandence-Wit§:-- regatfd teéstttmatgé
steels; and reimbursement of vatue of $h0rtage 0ff¢stt§::_§i}}fv.tiEfiVvSifCG7t Ct._.
respondent inveited the bank guaranteéts_ttfi:>m_VittedA’t:3ei_’tii:::_t”it=st :g§§ti’tii@nér
campany and reaiisad a sum of 16.00 ttxe itand first
petitioner C-Qmpzzny issued a nottc’¢«;§n.98:–. the arbitration
ctause under the C and at that stage
the second 1’€§p{)I1Ctt:.IV1t?.:vl(‘3€’iA:,¢%é:{it_.’a respondent petite
on 23.Gl.2Gt§S atlleging that the petitianers by
wnspizing committed sfflcheating, crimina}. bfeach 0f trust,
ztzisapprqnfifitattiun of géazist making wrongfui gain for tiiernseives and
V. ‘wrcttgfitittt E-t:rs_é _the=_ second respondent. This camplaint of secnnd
respii:1_dt*3jtM$afn1é”t:3_ bé.t’_re’giisterett by the first respmdent A peiice in crime
19f2’i3(}8 fe:»r’:ht§”bAfiencas gunishabie under Sectiazm 408, 450 and 428
t’ ‘ Aggt’ievcé—- 63: this complaint and registratisnn sf crtrne, the 13€:ti{iGI’t€I*S
tiatte {fled petition under Seetien 482 Cr.P.C.
4, Heard arguments an bath the side and petused the entire
” gapers.
&Ӣ
giwds vaiued at R512? Eakhs gius as an 28.G2.3£¥(3′}’. On the other hanci the
first petitioner denies the Eiabiiiiy 0f shoflage ef gaods and aim value of
the shertaga crf goads; As against this rival wntention the sagond
resyondent inveked the bank guarantee and realised 3 sum of _
iakhg frem the f3’$€ pretifiener cempany. Further the .
eampany’ im»-Gksd clause 35 of the C am! F ;%g3feement’3I;:1 —§{}*:,i¥s’sI;ec£V 5; é
neiice for appointment of an arbitrator. Tklézsa a::i.1:x§t5£ed'[J fj;VG£$iv’C*ti”1°V%?:§€-£}1’€§ zy
ciearly estabiishes the fact that the disijutg betvée=:.§xi”th€= ;3a1″ti’é$;Ai§;_vQf r:¥1″;vii
nature and the same do not haw am; crifiiiééi angle.’ ‘E1%rjVV:sz1;’:)p1’aé$§§sis2g the
fact of ixrvoking hank gz1ara11i§’é’~._of .’Rs,};,_{}.VC«€1__ and alsce the first
petitioner company im-asking the a:_b’TiI1iVati5_:iV ciiause the ageement by
issuing as notice, tlgsa’ r§sp¢:r21«.§é:1t”~c;5Irifiran§f[.§ias iadgcd the first
i11f0rma€ie£iv._rep=:1§*t wVié;’i1VfEf:a:L:pe§’iéej.:}§f1~-24-.O1.2O{)8. Therefore it is manifegt
that the secon€i,;fesp;)nVéie_n£V Asemfiigzzy’ is abusing the pmcess of law :9
_ V harass uiniirnidaié tbs: frst gzartiticsner cempany and its empiayeas and
I 01*; t:1″;:Is_ §K:r11_I:’1s:¥Af:%:c fiifst inforrnaiion report and the regstration of crime are
iia}b1¢’té;_1§e V A
‘ the shiirtage sf geods was neticed on £1.,G2..-‘EGG?
. , (2*:1 ri11g the azgzaiifse sf recontfiiation (If stacks, Subsequfintly on 23.€)2.?_{}0′?
tiéé sééaifigi rcspeaéent zwtieed the shortage ef stock to the tune sf Rs.2C?
plus. Thereaftsr bath the partias Sfiffiffid im-:3 €0E’I’€Si)O1’§d€3I’1G€ with
“ragard :0 the iiability of shortage: sf goeds. The second rewendent by
&;r’
Sfipfiffififiifig the cerrespendence:-.6 betweeh the first petitiener company anei
the S12′-(}G1’i{i respandmt and aftsr a iapsa 0f 11 months, iedged €he;::f'”i1*$t
hzfazmaticn report with the pehcs. On this grouné a1se~«~~-ihsg».’_3hi§’il”
informatiim repart and the registration of cziminai case H355″‘i.iVab’ié_1″£o”be”
quashed.
8. The Suprezrmz Chart in the saga of Hfiéaf;*a._ ‘;”‘eziné:”< V
and ethers Vs, State sf Bihar and anC£i1s:f,"h.2G0G €;?:r.._IV_,.'.:, as
under: V V V
"$6. In d¢_termining.t:1:1¢»qu:23hQn he kept in
mind that {ha ~dis'i«§:1:ét£en;¥)ctsase»éii me§é'hfea.c.11.V.§f <2-smtracz and
the 0f*fen<:,e"':§}f fin; It depends upon {ha
i:1tei;tio1:_ -sf at_:t'iie=..t_i;:ze.' i}f inducetnent which may
he ju§ig§d'–b}r i1Lz:§f’wzzduct but for this subsequent
co1:ductv’is”–«€1és£v«i11;é -‘5\”;~Ié..,tést,’~7hhrIere breach (sf centract cahnut
gig}? rise tax’ ‘c1fh’hinal: prosecumn fer cheating unless
V ufréhudtiienfh’ «qr dishhhééf ihtentizm is Shawn right at the
* .i:§hc–“!:ran3actieI:, that is the time when the Cfffifififi
H = ‘£é”_’h;:.*£’s.Vheen conlrnitted. Thereffire, it is the intehtkm
‘i>z:§1ic}1′ is gist ef the Gffence. Te hold 3 psrsen guilty hf
cheatihég it is necessary ta shew that he had frauduleht GI’
VT dishfinesé intentiazz at the tima hf making the premise. From
iIi’S: mere failure E9 keep up prenfisze suhseqaently such a
E auipabie itttentieh right at the begimlirzg, that is, when he
made the premise caxmot be presaxned.”
&’N:\}'”
In the C&S6 of Uma Shaniiar G:>pa.I.ika VS. State at’ Bihar and
another, (2085) 10 SCC’ 336 the Supreme Ceurt heid as under:
Now the question to be examinsci by us is as to
whether on the facts disciosed in the petiticn of complaint: = .’
any crimirtai offence whatseever is made out muchksts’ “—- V’ ‘
offences under Secticns 42G5120–B mt. L”
ailegatitm in the complaint petitien gsgainstttitéé ar.:_:s:t1:$é~t: that the
accttteti _fo;” moving the Consumer
.re;a:;o:t~«it¢4.;1;e.tgtiaimot Rs.4,20,{)0(}. 1: is wet:
scttled t1iat_4ex€¢r}tVVbrééct1 :_i:::;nt:ract weak! that give rise tea
at}: ‘effaetace taf’-»<:-_!1VVeat'i:1g énci only in those cases breach 0f
Wquld at1iC£t1t1t to cheating where them"; was any
' 'i.'1x'i=Vs:}t'3';3£vIf{)E1 :p.1§j:cd at the wry inception. If the intentien to
_ latsr an, the same cannet amount ta
A elteatitzg. present case it has newimre been stated that
at tiaetgary incaption there was any intention on behalf of
V " the actéused persons to cheat which is as candition precedent
V' *fi¥!"'3Il efience under Secztion 42$ IPC.
7. In out View petition sf comzalaint dogs not
disclose any eriminai effence at ail much iess any offence
either under Section -428 or Section 128-B E90 and the
present case is a case gureiy ciwfi tiispute between the
NJ.
63/
patties fez’ which remedy Iies before 3 civil court by fiiing a
prsperiy constituted suit. In our epinion, in View of these
facts sllewing the police finvestigation ts continue weuld
amount is an abuse of the pfccess of court and tar prevent
the same it was just and expedient for the Hi@ C-curt
quash the same by exercising the pewers under Seetigfi 5.7 “”
Cr.P.C. which it has erroneously refused.”
9. Keeping in mind the {aw Esid d0;s’r;;”by’ ‘£T_t3isz’;
decisions referred to supra it is neeessssy ta examine the Tfaet. siruetien is
the present case, In the complaint 1od’geti:”i2}r the muse on
23.91.2908 it is not stateci thst..fr0m.”t1ie Vii:e_epti0n’there’V was any
intention en the part of the pet£tit§ner}s~<t<5:'ehe§.i'–%itétleeetve the second
respendent;"*£;}tt:stt neeiessatgt'»i;ttgte:;iie7t§t"fer the offence under Section
426 3°C iSVV"é§bS.%§U-itt Es:je3<§i;1g"ef_:é§zs.eempiaint tmly suggests. that there is
etziy breach afterztts offcetzftaet the accused and as such the same
.. .. .;eeuIt§:L_:£tet;__s.m=a,;:nt toxehestizig. Therefcre the gsreeeedings against the
. V ' -.Aseefis"ed. srevtiabte be quashed.
‘ ._ vf:t’3é.VV’fti%ev_v.S;1ptfettie Ctzurt in Maksud Saiyed State of Gujarat and
A V} _ 0thet’s;”2{}0?’f (.11v):”Sca1e 313 held as under:
u “13. Witere a jurisdiction is exercised en s
V’ eémplaint petition {seat in terms ef Section 155(3) 0:’
Sectian 299 cf the Cede of criminal §’re<:-edute, the
':'v£sg1'sfl'ate is reqeéreci tea epgziy-' his mind, Indian Penal Cede
sees not centain any prmzisiens for attaching; viearieus
<35-'"
if}
liability 0:: {he part of the Managing Director er the
Diraaters ef the Company when the accused is the
Cempany. The leamad Magistrate failed is pose unte
hirnseif that correct qfaestian viz, as in whether the ‘
cempiaint petition, even if gym face value and raiaé:-am. ‘
correct in its entirety, would lead to the ccsnclusien fisxsf’
raspendents harein Wars persenaliy liabliz for ‘
The Bank is a bedy corporate. ‘»=’i::I_ariat:1_s ‘1ifa,.12i’E.if§;? 0f :theV X
Managing Directcr and Direatcgr W0did__ai’§s§ prox}i(i§ci”a.n3? VV
provision exists in that beii[a If’~ thé~ status.
indisputabiy must contain praviéiurébflxing. :s1′;t».:§1_VV:*»e”1R§21ri;:ir:2:.zTs
iiabiiities. Even fer the'”sa.ikc§ p1;r;§{$s.é5,: “0b1igatafg’cn’Vthe
part cf the c0mpla£:1anf”t0M :’:zakc:.§$1;f§i£siieLTvégi£c§g3ti0ns which
would attract. the V.§i’cvi$:i0ns– _ Vicaricus
liability?’
In mg}: and others (2003) :42 camp Cats
2:28 (SC_3_the Siiprejne C’ouft=héI<i ihai in tha absénca ef any ;)1'c2visi0n {aid
' V' '–.d.0w1é.[,1i§1d¢£.AtheM. stamié; 'a'*éi2'éctor or a wmpany or an empioyee came: he
held bé'-v1§icéfie§isi}' iiable for an cfience mmmitteé by the eampany
étséi€ ' ._
1I.=f1i'1.1 thé ingtant sassy naihing is piaced an raceré ta Shaw that
fssiitigner 2. £0 8 who are workizxg in ziiffereni capaaities in the fast
" 'peiifieaér company are sécariousiy liable fer the eifanaes cammiited by
* first patitioner company. Except stating ihai petitioner N03. 3 is 3 are
mspensibie: for the d3}'»t.:2-day afi}5i1"s of the firgt petitiefier cempam: there
63/"