Chattisgarh High Court
Manish Koomar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17138-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1762 of 2022
Manish Koomar S/o Bhim Munda Aged About 44 Years Employed And
Working For Gain At Nilai Syndicates, Fourth Floor, Nexa Showroom
Building, Opposite Hotel Redisson Blu, Argora, Ranchi, Jharkhand -
834001
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department Of Home,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Thana In-Charge Police Station Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Sunil Dewangan S/o Late Sri Shyamlal Dewangan Aged About 48
Years Partner Of M/s Vijay Dewangan, Subhas Nagar, Dhamtari, District
: Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate through Video
Conferencing assisted by Ms. Rajni Soren,
Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer
No.1 & 2/State
For Respondent : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate
No.3
2
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
15/04/2025
Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate through Video
Conferencing assisted by Ms. Rajni Soren, learned counsel for the
petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for
the State and Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3 .
2. The present petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed by
the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No. 0337/2022 registered at
Police Station Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner and entire
criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR.
3. Brief facts of the case are that FIR has been lodged by the
respondent No.3-Sunil Kumr Dewangan, who is a businessman and
partner of M/s. Vijay Dewangan, residing in Subhash Nagar, Dhamtari,
Chhattigarh. An FIR has been lodged under Section 420 of the IPC. The
petitioner is one of the partners of M/s. Nilaai syndicates, Ranchi,
Jharkhand, engaged in the business of distribution of Foreign liquor in
its own brand name for which the partnership firm is registered with the
Excise Department across various States and the brand name as also
the label of the liquor bottles has been duly certified by the respective
3
States. Having fulfilled the modalities under the Act, the rates were also
notified by the States in which the Excise license has been granted to
the partnership Firm of the petitioner.
4. In order to market the product of the partnership firm, various
distribution agreements in different States have been entered into
between the partnership firm of the petitioner as also the individual
distributors, intending to become distributors of M/s. Nilaai Syndicate.
One such agreement was entered into between the partnership firm of
the petitioner namely, Nilaai Syndicts long with M/s. Vijay Dewangan, a
proposed distributor at Dhamtari, within the State of Chhattisgarh. The
said agreement was executed on 2.12.2019, which contained reciprocal
contractual obligations to be met with by and between the parties.
5. Pursuant to entering into the agreement on 2.12.2019, on various
dates, a total amount of Rs. 2.55 crores was paid to the partnership firm
of the petitioner. However, the petitioner and its firm failed to supply the
foreign liquor to informant as was agreed upon and as such for non-
supply of foreign liquor, even after payment of advance, the allege
doffence under Section 420 of the IPC has been alleged to have been
committed.
6. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has been sending
photographs and videographs of various trucks and warehouses to the
informant, but the trucks loaded with the foreign liquor never reached to
the informant and as such, allegation of cheating has been made as
against the petitioner. Since the promises made in terms of the
agreement was not given effect too, on the request of the informant, an
amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- was refunded to the informant. Aggrieved of
4
the same, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner, therefore, by way of this petition is praying for
quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in FIR No. 0337/2022
lodged at police station Dhama tari (CG). The petitioner is seeking to
assail the entire criminal proceedings in connection with FIR No.
0337/2022 lodged at police station Dhamtari under Section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has not committed any act of
cheating that has resulted to loss to the respondent No.3 nor has
committed an act of cheating to enrich or benefit himself.
8. Pursuant to entering into agreement on 2.12.2019, on various
dates, total amount of Rs. 2.55 crores was paid to the partnership firm
of the petitioner as advanced/security. Before the partnership firm of the
petitioner could start its business with the permission of the excise
Department, there was an outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic, which had
shook the nation and the entire business activity had come to standstill.
On account of non-issuance of supply order/purchase order by the
Excise Department, the dispatches of foreign liquor has not been made
by the partnership firm of the petitioner. The lodging of the FIR had
come as a shock to the petitioner inasmuch as on 27.09.2022, the local
police at Dhamtari without following the due process of law, raided the
residential premises of the petitioner to arrest the petitioner. However,
since the petitioner was not available at the residential premises the
Officer-in-charge threatened the wife of the petitioner for her arrest,
since the wife of the petitioner is also one of the partner in the firm.
9. Thereafter a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was issued then and there with a direction to appear
5
personally on 17.10.2022. The local police at Ranchi, Jharkhand also
did not accede to the request of the local police of Dhamtari Police
station in carrying out the arrest of the petitioner which would otherwise
be contemptuous to the order/judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs.State of Bihar. Hence, the petitioner
has filed the present petition.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
No.3 did not comply with the terms and conditions of Clause 7.1 of the
agreement and pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
30.01.2025, additional documents have been filed stating that the
respondent No.3 was invited to give their orders. This letter of
01.02.2025 was replied by them on 07.03.2025 after 37 days and
thereafter they stated that the label of the petitioner is not registered. He
submits that their label M/s. Nilaai Syndicates is registered with the
Chhattisgarh State and the Chhattisgarh Excise Department has
granted permission to the petitioner to make supply.
11. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
he is praying for quashing of the FIR on the ground that in the earlier
order, the terms and conditions of clause 7.1 of the agreement has been
quoted which reads as under:
“7.1. DISTRIBUTOR represent and warrants that it
has obtained all Permits, licenses, registrations
and other approvals required by every national,
local or municipal government or agency, in
respect of the performance of DISTRIBUTOR’s
obligations under this Agreement.”
12. Secondly, there is an arbitration clause because the money was
taken by the petitioner and has not supplied but the petitioner was
6
always ready and willing to make the supply. The dispute is that as per
the submission of the counsel for the respondent No.3, the petitioner
has created the bottlings, labels to be supplied in the State of
Chhattisgarh because in every State when a supply is to be effected, a
new label has to be created because printing, boxing are separate and
all these expenses are carried out by the petitioner but the respondent
No.3 did not place the order and therefore the allegation that the
petitioner had taken the amount in advance and did not make the
supply is false. He submits that the order has bee passed on
30.01.2025, he had written to the respondent on 1st February 2025 and
they took time and after 37 days, the reply was filed on 7 th March 2025
that the label is not registered. The Excise policy was changed on 24 th
of March 2025 and till that time, the petitioner has registered the
application for renewal. He submits that 45 days from the last order
having already lapsed and now it is not open for them to make
allegation that the petitioner is at fault.
13. Learned State counsel submits that since the wife of the petitioner
is also a partner of the firm and CEO, she may also be made accused.
The petitioner is not cooperating in the investigation. He submits that in
the present petition, the respondent No.3 has lodged a written complaint
at police station Dhamtari, alleging that the firm Nilaai Syndicates
caused cheating and forgery and had taken Rs. 2.55 crores. Pursuant to
the said complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the
documents have been collected and statement of the complainant has
been recorded and offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out
against the petitioner. On the basis of the said report, FIR was lodged
7
and the matter is under investigation. He submits that since the
investigation is going on and the petitioner has been absconding, the
instant petition is premature and therefore the present is not a fit case to
quash the FIR and the same is liable to be dismissed. He submits that
the FIR could be quashed in the exceptional circumstances under which
the inherent jurisdiction may been extended, namely, (I) to give effect to
an order under the Code (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court
and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. He submit that the
petition is not maintainable on the ground of alternative and efficacious
remedy and without availing the same the petitioner is seeking
indulgence by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Lastly, he submits
that based on the investigation and the evidence collected during the
course of investigation, a case has been registered against the
petitioner, as such there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the
respondent State. Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that after the order
passed by this Court on 30.01.2025, he had approached the Excise
Department and the CSMCL and as on date, the company as well as
the registration of labels have not been registered with the Excise
Department. He submits that they have received documents after
applying through the RTI and so far as 800 labels were registered but
the labels of the petitioner/company has not been registered and
therefore without registration under the Chhattisgarh Excise Foreign
Rules 1996, the purchase order cannot be procured and this has been
communicated to the petitioner/firm. He further submits that an amount
of Rs. 2.55 crores was taken in the name of investment. He submits that
the petitioner has made an agreement in the name of Master Distributor
8
in the name of JAAT BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record including the impugned FIR.
16. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal
proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint,
FIR or a charge-sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the
investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may
be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
17. In the well notable judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 605 State
of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, the Apex Court held that
those guidelines should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest
of rare cases. Guidelines are as follows:
“(1) Where the allegations made in the First
Information Report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety to do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the First Information
Report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
156(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
9commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable
on the basis of which no prudent person can every
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding
is instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
18. In case of Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill; reported in (1995)
SCC (Cri) 1059, Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi; reported in
(1999) 3 SCC 259 and Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd.v.
Biological E Ltd. & Ors; reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, the Apex
Court clearly held that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the
ingredients of the offence, Court should not quash the complaint.
However, it was held that if the allegations do not constitute any offence
as alleged and appear to be patently absurd and improbable, Court
should not hesitate to quash the complaint. The note of caution was
reiterated that while considering such petitions the Courts should be
very circumspect, conscious and careful. Thus, there is no controversy
10
about the legal proposition that in case a prima facie case is made out,
the FIR or the proceedings in consequence thereof cannot be quashed.
19. Very recently in Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Apex Court
has observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. While examining an
F.I.R./complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot inquire
about the reliability, genuineness, or otherwise of the allegations made
in the F.I.R./complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very
wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious.
The Apex Court has emphasized that though the Court has the power to
quash the F.I.R. in suitable cases, the Court, when it exercises power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the
allegations of F.I.R. disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
and is not required to consider the case on merit.
20. Therefore, it is very well settled that criminal proceedings
maliciously instituted with ulterior motives can be quashed by this Court
while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
21. In the present case, it appears that the dispute is commercial in
nature leading to claims from either side and thus, from the overall
scrutiny of the FIR it is clear that it is purely a dispute of civil nature
between the complainant and the petitioner herein and there is a
comprehensive remedy of arbitration clause available under the Regulations .
Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the issue in Vinod Natesan v.
State of Kerala, (2019) 2 SCC 401 has observed that there was no
criminality on part of the accused and a civil dispute is tried to be
11
converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the criminal
proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process of
law. Relevant Para of the said judgment is quoted as below:-
“10.Having heard the appellant as party in person
and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
the original accused as well as the State of Kerala
and considering the judgment¹ and order passed by
the High Court, we are of the opinion that the
learned High Court has not committed any error in
quashing the criminal proceedings initiated by the
complainant. Even considering the allegations and
averments made in the FIR and the case behalf of
the appellant, it cannot be said that the ingredients
of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The
dispute between the parties at the most can be said
to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted
into a criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of
the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings
against the accused will be an abuse of process of
law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly
quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because
the original accused might not have paid the
amount due and payable under the agreement or
might not have paid the amount in lieu of month’s
notice before terminating the agreement by itself
cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having
committed offence under Sections 406 and 420
IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with
the view taken by the High Court.”
22. Recently, in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
82 the Apex Court reiterated its view that a commercial dispute, which
ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been
given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or
phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint. Relevant para of
the said judgment is quoted as below:-
“20. While it is true that at the stage of issuing
summons a magistrate only needs to be satisfied
with a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the
duty of the magistrate is also to be satisfied
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
12as has been held in the case of Jagdish Ram
(supra). The same proposition of law has been laid
down in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special
Judicial Magistrate[(1998) 5 SCC 749]. The
learned Magistrate’s order issuing summons
records the background of the case in rather
longish detail but reflects his satisfaction in a
cryptic manner. At the stage of issue of
summons,detailed reasoning as to why a
Magistrate is issuing summons, however, is not
necessary. But in this case, we are satisfied that
the allegations made by the complainant do not
give rise to the offences for which the appellant
has been summoned for trial. A commercial
dispute, which ought to have been resolved
through the forum of Civil Court has been given
criminal colour by lifting from the penal code
certain words or phrases and implanting them in a
criminal complaint. The learned Magistrate here
failed to apply his mind in issuing summons and
the High Court also failed to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the 1973 Code to prevent
abuse of the power of the Criminal Court.
21. It is true that the appellant could seek
discharge in course of the proceeding itself before
the concerned Court, but here we find that nocase
at all has been made out that would justify invoking
the machinery of the Criminal Courts. The dispute,
per se, is commercial in nature having no element
of criminality.”
23. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned First
Information Report No. 0337/2022 registered at Police Station Dhamtari,
District Dhamtari, CG for the offence punishable under Section 420 of
IPC against the petitioner and entire criminal proceedings pursuant to
impugned FIR are hereby quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.04.19
14:53:21 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link