JUDGMENT
J.P. Singh, J.
1. Process issued by Municipal Mobile Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, on a complaint of the respondents under Section 420 of the Ranbir Penal Code, has been questioned by the petitioners in this petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Sh. Romeshwar P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, while relying on Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 2000 Cri. L.J. 2982 SC, submits that the learned Magistrate has erred in issuing process against the petitioners under Section 420 of the Ranbir Penal Code, when the ingredients of the offence were not made out from what was stated by the respondents in their complaint and unless dishonest intention of the accused at the beginning of the transactions was made out, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue process for summoning the petitioners. He prays for awarding examplary costs because the criminal proceedings against the petitioners are vexatious. Reliance is placed on Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha v. Narayan Singh and Anr. .
3. Sh. Sudershan Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that offence under Section 420 RPC stood made out on the basis of what had been stated in the complaint and the sworn testimony of the complainant and his witnesses. He further submits that proceedings before the learned Magistrate are neither vexatious nor unsustainable.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, case law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as also the material on records.
5. Before dealing with the issues raised in this petition, reference to what is contained in the complaint would be relevant. Paragraphs 6, 7, 9 and 10 read thus:
6. That since the firm of the accused was an old customer of different members of the Association including the concerns of the complainants on whose behalf this complaint is being filed by the Elected President of the Association, as such the firm through its Managing Partner Sh. R. L. Asarani, used to purchase the dry fruits from the business concerns of the complainants in cash or on credit basis.
7. That right from very beginning to mid of the year 1999 the business relationship between the parties to this complaint remained satisfactory but after that the said Managing Partner of the firm started committing defaults in liquidating the debts of his firm and because of which the debts started accumulating day by day, as the firm of the accused use to get regular supply of demanded quantity and varieties of dry fruits from each aforesaid concern and all this was being done on trust basis and also in view of the successive assurances of liquidating the debts given by the said Managing Partner of the firm.
8. That the moment each business concern started facing many fold difficulties in running its day to day business due to blockage of their money than each concern through its Managing Partner/proprietor made number of request to the managing partner of the firm namely Sh. R. L. Asarani for liquidating the outstanding debts and on each such occasion the Managing partner of the firm used to give assurances that shortly he will liquidate the debts of his firm which are due to each business concern.
9. That after waiting for pretty long time, when the main accused i.e. the Managing partner of the firm failed to fulfill his commitments made with each aforesaid aggrieved business concern and after being exhausted and also being caught between devil and deep sea, the aggrieved members of the association brought the issue into the notice of their association, upon which, the issue was discussed threadware in the meeting of the association and it was decided with a common voice that the association is taking up the issue in hand and will fight for the same with the firm of the accused.
10. Krishan Lal Anand, complainant, while reiterating the allegations made in the complaint stated on oath in his preliminary statement that he and other persons had gone to the accused several times, who had paid 10% (Ten per cent) of the amount due to them and had promised to pay the rest of the amount, but the remaining amount could not be paid till he made the statement. Accused had closed the business and they did not want to make the payment. The witnesses produced by the complainant, too, do not indicate anything more than what has been stated by Krishan Lal Anand, complainant, in his statement.
11. The sum total of the allegations levelled in the complaint speaks of good business relations between the firm of the petitioners-accused and the respondents who would sell dry fruit to the petitioners during the course of their business transactions. It further comes out that the petitioners had been making payment and even after closing down their business had paid 10 per cent of the alleged amount due, but thereafter had not made any payment to the respondents.
12. Another fact which needs to be noticed is that Sanjeev Anand S/o complainant, Kirshan Lal Anand R/o 58 B/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, appears to have filed a civil suit against the petitioners for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,13,591.77 (Rupees two lakh thirteen thousand five hundred ninety one and seventy seven paise) which is shown to be pending in the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Jammu. This suit appears to have been filed on August 12,2002, whereas the complaint was filed by seventeen firms through Krishan Lal Anand, being the President of Jammu Fruit Association, on December 31, 2003.
13. From the aforesaid facts, the case projected by the respondents before Municipal Mobile Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, does not appear to be anything else than a pure and simple trade dispute inter-se trading parties.
14. Element of dishonest intention at the beginning of the transactions, which is the Sine-Qua-Non for attracting Section 415 of the Ranbir Penal Code, is absent in the allegations and preliminary proof furnished by the respondents before the learned Magistrate.
15. Non payment of amount by a person due to another would not, in my opinion, amount to commission of any offence under Ranbir Penal Code. I am fortified in taking this view by “Mohan Lal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan” 2000 Cri. L. J. 2982 SC, cited by Sh. Romeshwar P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners. The filing of suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,13,591.77 (Rupees two lakh thirteen thousand five hundred ninety one and seventy seven paise) before the initiation of criminal proceedings goes a long way in revealing the real intention of the respondents in dragging the petitioners to criminal Courts.
16. Learned Municipal Mobile, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, too, does not appear to have noticed the non-existence of the ingredients of Section 415 of the Ranbir Penal Code in the complaint and evidence produced by the respondents before him. Learned Magistrate does not appear to have exercised his judicial discretion in accordance with the law. He does not appear to have applied his mind to the facts of the case, which has resulted in unnecessary harassment to the petitioners.
17. Criminal Courts are required to be vigilant in entertaining such type of complaints, which on the face of it appear to be vexatious and frivolous. This is so because exercise of jurisdiction by the Magistrates while issuing process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Svt. 1989 results in curtailing the liberty of the citizens, who are sought to be proceeded against on the basis of such type of complaints.
18. I, therefore, find this not only a fit case for quashing proceedings but an appropriate case also, where Krishan Lal Anand, complainant, is burdened to pay compensatory costs to the petitioners for launching vexatious proceedings and that, too, for and on behalf of those firms who allegedly had to recover money from the petitioners in some business transactions.
19. Accordingly, while quashing proceedings in case titled Kashmir Commercial Agency and Ors. v. Dewan Chand Dholan Dass & Co. and Ors., pending before learned Municipal Mobile, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jammu, I direct that Krishan Lal Anand S/o Sh. Mathura Dass, R/o 58 B/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, shall pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) as compensatory costs to the petitioners for launching vexatious and frivolous criminal proceedings against the petitioners and dragging them at their old age all the way from Delhi to Jammu.
Ordered accordingly.