Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/15988/2008 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 15988 of 2008
=========================================================
MINKU
S GANDHI & 1 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
VIRAT G POPAT for Applicant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS SHAH APP for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 28/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Petitioners
are original accused. They seek quashing of complaint bearing
C.R.No.I-52 of 2008 filed before GIDC Vatva Police Station on
26.5.2008 and all proceedings arising out of the said complaint.
Short
facts are as follows:
2,1 Apparently
between the petitioners and complainant, there were business
relations. Petitioners had been receiving certain chemicals from the
employer of the complainant known as PCL-3 chemicals for the purpose
of the factory owned and run by the petitioners. In the complaint,
filed on 26.5.2008, the complainant had alleged inter-alia that on
19.5.2008 as instructed by his employer Vipulbhai, he delivered 1000
kgs. of PCL -3 chemical at the factory of the petitioners at Vatva
GIDC. He was informed that previously also 3000 kgs of said chemical
was supplied for which recovery of Rs.3,96,060/- was to be made.
Thus, along with the fresh consignment, total payment of
Rs.5,43,060/- was to be received. Accordingly, the complainant
carried the chemical to the factory of the petitioners whereupon
petitioner No.1 informed the complainant that only after the
chemical was unloaded, he will sign the delivery receipt. After
unloading the chemical, the complainant was given 3 cheques of
Rs.1,23,000/- Rs.2,73,060/- and Rs.1,47,000/-. The petitioner No.1,
however, instructed him to call his boss who came to the site.
Petitioner No.1 complained to them that the quality of the goods is
not good and he does not intend to pay. Vipulbhai, the employer of
the company told the accused that if they are not satisfied with the
quality, they may return the goods, whereupon both the accused got
excited and started abusing and threatened to beat up the
complainant and Vipulbhai. They refused to sign delivery chalan and
also snatched away the cheques given by them. Subsequently on
24.5.2008, when once again Vipulbhai and complainant visited their
factory, they refused to either sign the delivery chalan or return
the goods. On the basis of these averments, above FIR came to be
lodged. Investigation was carried out, charge-sheet was filed for
offence under Section 384 of Indian Penal Code against all the
accused. During the investigation, Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of the complainant, his employer Vipulbhai as well as
Krishna Himatbhai Shrimali, the driver of the vehicle in which the
chemical was transported. All of them more or less reiterated what
is stated in the complaint.
Under
a panchnama dated 26.5.2008, entire 1000 kgs. of the chemical
previously delivered by the complainant came to be seized. It is
stated that ultimately the same was also handed over to the
complainant. To this statement made in the petition, no rebuttal has
been made in the reply filed by the complainant.
Counsel
for the petitioners submitted that no case for offence under Section
384 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Complaint was lodged nearly
after a week of the alleged incident. In the meantime, the
petitioners had also raised the issue of ill-treatment by the
complainant and his employer. Such complaint was, however, not
registered. Entire consignment was seized immediately and
thereafter, handed over to the complainant.
He
further contended that ingredients of Section 383 of IPC which
defines the offence of extortion are not made out. He relied on
decision in the case of Dhananjay alias Dhananjay Kumar Singh
V/s. State of Bihar and another reported in (2007) 14 SCC
768.
On
the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the
petition contending that the trial has already been commenced. Only
on account of non availability of the petitioner-accused, the same
got delayed. At this stage, therefore, no interference is called
for. He submitted that if the allegations made in the complaint are
taken to be true, the petitioners can be stated to have committed
the offence of extortion.
I
have also heard learned APP for the State.
From
the consideration of the submissions and perusal of the documents on
record, it emerges that there were business relations between the
petitioners and complainant’s employer. Vipulbhai the employer of
the complainant was the supplier of certain chemicals which were
consumed by the petitioners in their factory. Previously also, such
chemicals were supplied. Payments were, however, outstanding. When
on the third occasion 1000 Kgs. of chemicals were delivered,
disputes arose between the parties. Petitioners contended that the
quality is inferior and they refused to either return the
consignment or to sign the delivery chalan. They, in fact, snatched
back 3 cheques issued for covering entire payment of chemicals
delivered till then.
Primarily,
the entire issue arose out of business relations between the parties
and it is predominantly of civil dispute. Of course, there is an
element of usage of tone language and threat to beat up the
complainant and Vipulbhai. However, short question, in facts of the
case is, can the petitioner be stated to have committed offence of
extortion punishable under Section 384 of IPC? The term extortion
has been defined in Section 383 which reads as follows:
“Section
383. Extortion- Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any
injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly
induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may
be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.”
If
one peruses the definition of offence of extortion, it is required
that the accused should have intentinoally put any person in fear of
any injury to that person or any other person and thereby
dishonestly induced such a person to deliver any property or
valuable security, or anything which may be converted in the
valuable security. If one peruses all the allegations in the FIR
minutely, it nowhere states that the accused had put complainant and
any other person in fear of injury and thereby induced him to
deliver any property or valuable security. The complaint only
records that after having received the consignment of 1000 kgs.
chemical, petitioners refused to sign the delivery chalan citing
inferior quality of the material as a reason. They snatched back the
cheques issued by them and also refused to return the goods. To my
mind, such allegations would not constitute the offence of extortion
as defined under Section 383 of IPC.
Additionally, I
find that the dispute is predominantly of civil nature. Out of
business relations. The goods, namely, 1000 Kgs. of chemicals were
already handed over to the complainant. In totality of the facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that permitting the trial to
proceed further against the petitioners would amount to abuse of
process of Court. The FIR bearing C.R.No.I-52 of 2008 filed before
GIDC Vatva Police Station on 26.5.2008 with all consequential
proceedings arising out of the same are quashed. Rule made absolute
accordingly. Direct service permitted.
Counsel for the
petitioners also submitted that petitioners have no objection if
such mudamal finally remains with the complainant permanently. Thus,
despite quashing of the petition, it is clarified and directed that
1000 Kgs. of chemical handed over to the complainant from the
petitioners will be retained by the complainant and the petitioners
will have no claim over the same.
(AKIL
KURESHI, J.)
(ashish)
Top