Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 21.10.2008
K.Jayram ....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH
Present:- Mr.Deepak A.Masih, Attorney of the petitioner.
1.Whether Reporters of local papers 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?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner as a Chairman of Company called India
Household and Health Care Limited (for short “IHHL”) entered into a
contractual relationship with a foreign based multinational company
Hyundai Corporation. In terms of the said agreement, IHHL, which is
a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act,
1956, entered into an agreement for exclusive
marketing/manufacturing rights of the Mobile Phone Handsets in the
India Territory with the respondent Hyundai Corporation, a South
Korean Company. Copy of the said agreement dated 8.9.2004 has
been appended with the present writ petition as Annexure P1. As per
the petitioner, the Hyundai Corporation is a company registered in
the Republic of South Korea and is one of the leading manufacturers
and distributors of various electronic goods and automobile products
in various countries across the world.
Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 2
The case of the petitioner is that IHHL had acted upon
the agreement and started making payment to Hyundai Corporation
and the IHHL had paid large amount to Hyundai than what it
collected from all other distributors.
On the basis of the petition filed by respondent No.2, this
Court passed an order dated 21.2.2007 (Annexure P6), whereby this
Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to
inquire into the matter and take appropriate action on the
representation (Annexure P8) appended to the petition filed by
respondent No.2. The grievance of respondent No.2 was that the
said respondent was allured in investing Rs.ten lacs for
distributorship of mobile telephone handsets after entering into an
agreement. The complaint was made by the said respondent on
25.1.2007 to SHO of Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh for
registration of a case against respondents No.3 to 6 in the petition
filed by respondent No.2. On the basis of the said order passed by
this Court, an FIR No.139 dated 5.4.2007 has been registered. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 20.8.2007, the petitioner has issued
notice to the Presidents, Information and Telecommunication Division
and Finance Division, Hyundai Corporation, Seoul Korea, inter-alia,
making the following demands:-
“16.As a result of this, our client had suffered
incomprehensible loss in terms of money and
business reputation both and they are entitled to
be compensated for the same.
17.We strongly intimate you that it is not a case of
Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 3simple business dispute but it is an act of
wholesome cheating by your company and every
body responsible for this deserves to be
prosecuted criminally.
We, finally, hereby, call upon you to refund the
principal amount of US $ 1.125 million along with an
interest of 18% per annum and a sum of 5 million US
$ as damages on account of loss incurred by your
client in setting nation wide infrastructure for the
purpose of carrying out the business and further sum
of 2 million US $ on account of loss of reputation,
good will and business relations with the distributor
within 30 days from the receipt of this notice failing
which we will be constrained to initiate all legal action
including civil, criminal and tortuous against your
management and the company.”
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482
Cr.PC for issuance of appropriate directions/guidelines to Union of
India and for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.
The case of the petitioner is that the Government of India
should issue the guidelines to meet out an eventuality when a foreign
multinational runs away with the Indian money. Petitioner has sought
quashing of the FIR as the same is an abuse of process of law and
the personal liberty of the petitioner is curtailed on account of lodging
of such FIR. In support of such contention, counsel for the petitioner
Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 4
has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported as G.Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others,
(2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 636; Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma
and others. v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 Supreme
Court 2341 and M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India
Ltd. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2002 decided on
20.7.2006.
In respect of the first contention of the petitioner for
directing the Government of India to issue appropriate guidelines to
take necessary steps when a foreign multinational runs away with
the Indian money and in respect of the refund of the money taken
from the Indian resident(s)/Company, suffice it to say that such policy
matters fall in the economic policy domain of the Government of
India and are beyond the judicial purview of this Court. It is for the
Government of India or such other competent authority to take
decision in this regard. The said prayer is beyond the scope of
judicial review of this Court. Hence, we do not find that any relief, in
this regard, can be granted to the petitioner.
The argument of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR is
that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute, therefore, initiation of
criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. As the civil relief
cannot be permitted to be raised under the guise of a criminal
offence, therefore, the initiation of proceedings by lodging the FIR
against the petitioner is totally unwarranted.
As mentioned above, the petitioner has entered into an
agreement regarding distributorship of mobile telephone handsets
Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 5
and its related accessories with the Company in Korea. In the notice
dated 20.8.2007, it is the case of the petitioner himself that it is not a
simple business dispute, but an act of wholesome cheating.
Petitioner has sought refund of the principal amount in the said
notice. As a matter of fact, a perusal of this notice would show that
the petitioner himself has levelled the allegations of initiation of
criminal proceedings against the Company incorporated in Korea. It
is the petitioner, who has entered into an agreement with the said
Company, therefore, to argue that in respect of money received from
respondent No.2, it is the civil dispute, whereas, in respect of
petitioner, it is a criminal offence. In fact, the allegations are against
the Director of IHHL and it would be matter of investigation in respect
of role of the petitioner, Director of IHHL or of Director of Hyundai
Corporation.
As on today, an FIR has been lodged. Further
investigations are required to be carried out to find out whether any
criminal offence has been committed by the petitioner or any other
Director of IHHL. At this stage, we do not find that any inference can
be drawn that it is only a civil dispute, which may warrant the
quashing of criminal proceedings or to return a finding that such
proceedings are an abuse of process of law.
Consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ petition
and, therefore, the same is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
21.10.2008 (NAWAB SINGH)
AS JUDGE