IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Misc. No.1828-M of 2003
Date of Decision: 17.7.2009
Mohinder Singh Lathar and another.
....... Petitioners through Shri
Narender Hooda,Advocate.
Versus
State of Haryana and another.
....... Respondent No.1 through
Shri Ajay Singh Ghangas,
Deputy Advocate General.
Respondent No.2 through
Shri Rajinder
Goyal, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
....
Mahesh Grover,J.
The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of F.I.R.No.73 dated
22.2.2002 registered under Sections 323, 218, 467,468, 471, 500, 506, 420,
120-B, 504 of the I.P.C. at Police Station, City Kaithal at the behest of
respondent no.2.
Petitioner no.1 is District Food & Supplies Controller with
Food & Supplies Department, Haryana, whereas petitioner no.2 is a retired
Inspector of the same department.
The facts which have given rise to the controversy is that there
Crl.Misc.No.1828-M of 2003
-2-
….
were two firms, namely, M/S Shiva Traders, Kaithal and M/S Bansal
Industries and Cold Storage, Kaithal. Both these firms initially belonged to
the same group of persons and were having dealings with the Food &
Supplies Department, Haryana. An amount of Rs.20,37,937/-was due to the
department from M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage, whereas an
amount of Rs.5,81,957/- was payable by the department to M/S Shiva
Traders. A cheque of the amount due to M/S Shiva Traders was issued on
7.6.2001, which required the approval of petitioner no.1 and the same was
sent to him. According to the petitioners, when the said cheque was put up
before petitioner, no.1, he realised that an amount of Rs.20,37,937/- was
due from M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage to the department and
since the group of people controlling both these firms was the same, he
cancelled that cheque, ostensibly for the reason that the department was to
recover the outstanding dues from one of the firms. Annexure P3 is the
cancellation order. The matter was thereafter referred to an Arbitrator by
way of Annexure P4. A reply was submitted by respondent no.2 which is
also on record as Annexure P5. A recovery notice was issued by the
department to M/S Bansal Industries and Cold Storage to which a reply was
filed on 22.2.2002. Thereafter, respondent no.2 preferred a complaint
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, who sent it to the concerned
police station for investigation and registration of a case. The complaint
has been reproduced in paragraph 2 of the instant petition, the relevant
portion of which is extracted below:-
“1. That the complainant is a permanent resident of Kaithal has
Crl.Misc.No.1828-M of 2003-3-
….
a reputed firm under the name and style of M/S Shiva Traders,
Kaithal, which is running business for the last 12 years in
Kaithal and accused 1 & 2 Inspector Food & Supply are
having specific knowledge of law.
2. That accused No.1 by misusing his powers issued a letter
no.9379 dated 3.12.2001 to the complainant firm which is
contrary to law. The complainant submitted the reply to the
said illegal letter/ order of the accused No.1 on 8.12.2001
through registered A.D. (copy of the said notice and reply
hereto are attached herewith).
3. That in continuity of the above, accused No.1 wrote a letter/
order on 21.12.2001 vide memo No. 9929 (copy of this letter is
also endorsed with this complaint).
4. That after receiving the letter dated 21.12.2001, the
complainant tried to meet the accused No.1 at his office to
clarify the whole position along with some respectable
persons, but the accused No.1 did not allow the complainant
along with others to enter the office and in a loud voice stated
“get out” with threatening the complainant to spoil his life and
business and otherwise also.
5. That the complainant have instituted a civil suit against
some Government department out of which the accused No.1 is
one of the defendant on 28.1.2002 for securing some lawful
relief.
Crl.Misc.No.1828-M of 2003
-4-
….
6. That the accused after receiving of the summons of civil
suit, they became more annoyed, tried to entangle the
complainant and family members on one pretext or the others
during the course of business and also tried to cheat the
complainant under the garb of unlawful demands, which the
complainant cannot fulfill.
7. That prior to this incident, the accused No.1 causing
wrongful loss to the complainant and with a motive to gain
something under pressure detained the amount of cheque
No.144638 dated 7.6.2001, which was duly prepared due
verification and formalities of the department.
8. That not only this, the accused came to the premises of the
complainant and gave threatens to the complainant with dire
consequences of the complaint, will take action against them in
the course of law on 8.2.2002 and also used of mother and
sister, hence, this complaint.
9. That the accused have committed an offence u/s 323, 218,
467, 468, 471, 500, 506, 420, 120-B, 504 IPC as the accused
used the abusing language, insulted and defame the
complainant by issuing forged order/ letter, which are contrary
to law, besides mental torture within the area of police station
City Kaithal. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused may
kindly be summoned and punished accordingly for the ends of
justice.”
Crl.Misc.No.1828-M of 2003
-5-
….
On the basis of the above quoted complaint, the F.I.R. in
question was registered and the petitioners are facing the proceedings
pursuant thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended with reference to
the facts which have been detailed above, that the present F.I.R. is
completely an abuse of the process of law. He submitted that the amount of
Rs.20,37,937/- was due to the department from M/S Bansal Industries and
Cold Storage and petitioner no.1 was very well within his right to stall the
payment of the cheque issued in the name of M/S Shiva Traders because
both these firms were controlled by the same group of persons of one
family. It is, thus, his contention that the intention of petitioner no.1, at best,
was to secure the interest of the department and he did not act on account of
any malice or animosity. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioners
contended that a perusal of the complaint does not reveal the commission
of any offence and even if the cheque was stalled, then it could, at best, be
taken to have given rise to a dispute which could be civil in nature and the
proceedings of arbitration had appropriately been initiated by the
complainant. He argued that by any stretch of imagination, no criminal
liability was attracted towards the petitioners.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.2 has
contended that it was malicious move on the part of the petitioners to have
cancelled the cheque issued to M/S Shiva Traders and that petitioner no.1
has caused wrongful loss to the complainant with a motive to gain
something under pressure and detained the cheque in question.
Crl.Misc.No.1828-M of 2003
-6-
….
I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have
perused the entire material which has been placed on record.
A reading of the complaint that has been made and reproduced
above, on the basis of which the instant F.I.R. has been registered, reveals
that it does not disclose commission of any offence. The F.I.R. has been
registered under Sections 323, 218, 467, 471, 500, 506, 420,, 120-B, 504 of
the I.P.C., but, in my opinion, none of the offences punishable under these
provisions of law are made out even if the entire allegations contained in
the complaint are taken to be correct. That apart, concededly, the
complainant had business transactions with the Food & Supplies
Department, Haryana of which the petitioners were the officials. It is also
not in dispute that arbitration proceedings were initiated regarding the
cheque in question. Since the dispute has occurred primarily on account of
the withholding of the cheque of which petitioner no.1 was duly authorised
either to clear it or reject it for the reason that he was officially empowered
to do so, I am of the considered opinion that the present complaint/ F.I.R. is
clearly an abuse of the process of law. The complainant has obviously tried
to inject criminal element into a dispute which is purely of civil nature.
The Court also views the matter in a perspective that it is an
attempt to overawe the officials of the government to prevent them from
discharging their duties by invoking the criminal process without any basis.
As a sequel to the above discussion, the present petition
deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The F.I.R. in question and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Crl.Misc.No.1828-M of 2003
-7-
….
Since the complainant has set into motion the criminal law
without there being any basis for it and had subjected the officials of the
department to the rigours of the prosecution, he is directed to pay a sum of
Rs.20,000/-as costs, which shall be deposited by him with the trial Court
within one month from today and shall be paid to the petitioners in equal
share as a measure of compensation to them. A report with regard to the
deposit of the amount of costs by the complainant shall be submitted by the
trial Court within a period of fifteen days thereafter.
July 17,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) "SCM" Judge