ORDER
B.K. Rathi, J.
1. This is a petition to quash the charge sheet and proceedings of case No. 2180 of 2000, State v. Amrik Singh and Ors., pending in the Court if IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :
3. An F.I.R. for offences under Sections 419, 420, I.P.C. was lodged by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner. In brief it was alleged that the complainant gave an order to the petitioner to install a sella rice plant in Tehsil Baheri and an agreement was executed. According to the agreement the plant was to be completed by 10-9-1978 for agreed amount of Rs. 13,71,000/-. A written agreement was executed for completion of plant, the period was mutually extended up to 30-l0-1978, that 80% of the amount of the plant was given thought 75% work only was not done. The petitioner did not complete the plant and ran away from the site to Amritsar, that the complainant contacted the petitioner several times and he repeatedly promised to complete the plant, but did not complete the plant.
4. The F.I.R. was investigated and charge sheet for offence under Section 420, I.P.C. have been submitted against the petitioner, on which the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
5. I have heard Sri S.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R.C. Saxena, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.O.A.
6. The only argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no criminal offence is made out and the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature, that ingredients of the offence under Section 420, I.P.C. are not made out.
7. In this case it is admitted that the complaint placed an order with the petitioner to instal a plant for Rs. 13,71,000/-which is Annexure No. 1 to this petition. The agreement between the parties is Annexure No. 8 to this petition. It appears that there was some dispute and registered notice was given by the complainant on 12-1-1999, which is Annexure No. 2 to this petition. The notice was replied by the petitioner on 27-1-1999, Annexure No. 3 to this petition. From the notice and reply of the notice it appears that there was dispute regarding the payment of the work done by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed original suit No. 26 in the Court of Civil Judge, Amritsar claiming Rs. 2,65,000/- towards the balance amount of the machinery supplied to the complainant. The suit was filed on 18-1-1999.
8. It is contended that the service of notice of the suit was avoided by the complainant and the F.I.R. was lodged on 22-3-1999 to harass the petitioner , who is resident of Amritsar and the F.I.R. was lodged in Bareilly in Uttar Pradesh, that the arrest of the petitioner was stayed during investigation by order Annexure No. 6 to this petition.
9. It has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that written statement has been filed in the suit filed at Amritsar by the petitioner and he never avoided service of notice.
10. It is further pleaded that it is incorrect that the dispute is purely of civil nature that in fact the petitioner cheated the opposite party No. 2 and did not complete the work according to the agreement within the stipulated time and cheated opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 has suffered great financial and mental loss in the business, that the opposite party No. 2 never pressurized the petitioner to enter into any compromise.
11. From the perusal of the affidavits, it appears that the dispute between the parties is regarding non-completion of plant by the petitioner, which caused loss to the complainant. The petitioner has his own version for not completing the plant. Therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely, of civil nature and no ingredient of cheating has been disclosed in this case.
12. The learned counsel for petitioner has referred to the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Schindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre AIR 1988 SC 709. It was a case of breach of trust and complaint for offences under Sections 406, 467, I.P.C. was lodged. It was held by the Apex Court that alleged breach of trust is only a civil wrong and no criminal offence is made out.
13. The other case referred to is Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850. In this case, the truck was seized by the financer. The purchaser launched criminal prosecution against financer. It was held that the dispute is purely of civil nature.
14. In this case, the essential question of decision is as to why the plant could not be” completed and who is the defaulter. It is admitted that 75% work was completed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner the, remaining work could not be done for want of payment. Therefore, the criminal liability cannot be attributed and the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. Even the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint does not make out criminal offence. The F.I.R. was lodged only to harass the petitioner, who is resident of far place of different State. The prosecution of the petitioner is gross misuse of the process of the Court.
15. The petition is accordingly allowed and the charge sheet and the proceedings of case No. 2180 of 2000, State v. Amrik Singh pending in the Court of IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly are quashed.