Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayesh vs Cummins Technologies India Private … on 8 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S. KALGAONKAR
ON THE 08th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 53880 of 2021
JAYESH & ANOTHER
Versus
CUMMINS TECHONOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD & ANOTHER
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Mehra - Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Reserved on : 28.11.2024
Pronounced on : 08 .01.2025
ORDER
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar pronounced the
following:
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed feeling
aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by Shri Rakesh Kumar
Kushwah, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Distt. Indore whereby the learned
JMFC allowed the application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and forwarded the
complaint for investigation to P.S. Sadar Bazar, Indore.
2. The exposition of the facts, giving rise to the present petition, is as under
:-
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
The respondent/complainant Cummins Technology India Pvt. Ltd.
Through Mr. Vaijraj Baswapattan submitted a written complaint u/S 200 read
with 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. requesting registration of FIR u/S 405, 406, 420,
468, 470 and 471 of IPC against Jayesh Joshi and Pushpraj Dwivedi
(petitioners herein). It is stated in the complaint that the accused had
approached the complainant for repair of Grinding Steady Rest Machines. The
complainant issued Steady Rest Machine No.1 vide challan dated 11.06.2015
of total value Rs. 9, 16,212/- to the accused for repair. An e-mail
communication was sent to the accused on 10.08.2015 that the machine had to
be delivered at complainant premises, failing which the complainant would be
liable to pay applicable duty on the machine. Further, as per the SEZ rules, the
machine sent for repair by the complainant has to be returned within 120 days,
failing which, the complainant would be liable to take customs duty alongwith
interest. The accused acknowledge the e-mail and assured the complainant that
the machine would be sent back to the complainant premises within the
statutory time limit of 120 days. Later, the time limit was extended for an
additional 30 days. Despite repeated communication and requests, the accused
failed to deliver the machine. On 13.08.2015, Steady Rest Machine No.2 was
issued JTE-valued at Rs. 3,23,537/- and Turbine Wheels valued to Rs. 13,475/-
were issued vide challan dated 13.08.2015, which was to be delivered after
repair within 120 days as per the SEZ Rules. Despite repeated reminders and
requests, accused failed to deliver Steady Rest Machine No.2 and Turbine
Wheels to the complainant within the stipulated time. The complainant had
paid the customs duty amounting to Rs. 2, 66,914/- at Customs Department,
Pithampur. Thus, the accused is liable to pay the customs duty amounting to
Rs. 15, 20,138/- towards Steady Rest Machine No.1 and Steady Rest Machine
No. 2 and the Turbine wheels. The accused with an intention to cause wrongful
loss to the complainant did not deliver goods and fraudulently charged VAT.
Thus, the accused had committed offence of criminal breach of trust, cheating,
3NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery. Therefore, the accused
is liable for offence(s) punishable u/S 405, 406,420,468, 470 and 471 of IPC.
The JMFC, Indore forwarded the complaint for investigation to P.S. Sadar
Bazar vide order dated 06.08.2016.
3. The order forwarding the complaint was assailed in M.Cr.C. No.
1094/2017 before the High Court. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 24.04.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1094/2017 allowed the petition
and quashed the impugned order. It was directed that the respondent shall be at
liberty to file proper affidavit u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and after filing of the
affidavit, learned Magistrate may pass an order in the matter in consonance
with the dictum of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka
Shrivastava Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015(6) SCC 287.
4. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed by the respondent in respect of
application u/S 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed on 08.05.2017. Thereafter, learned JMFC,
Indore passed the impugned order dated 15.03.2021 directing investigation into
the complaint by the SHO, P.S. Sadar Bazar, Indore. The present petition u/S
482 of Cr.P.C. is filed assailing the impugned order on the following grounds:
(i) Learned JMFC, Indore did not comply with the order of High Court
passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1094/2017 in its true spirit.
(ii) The complainant has failed to demonstrate that he has complied with
Section154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. before filing application u/S 156(3) of
Cr.P.C.
(iii) The allegations contained in the complaint are civil in nature. The matter
relates to Taxation and claim for damages.
(iv) Learned JMFC did not consider this aspect of the matter before
forwarding the complaint to the P.S. Sadar Bazar, Indore.
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
(v) Learned JMFC could have called for an inquiry report before forwarding
the complaint for investigation.
(vi) The complainant had filed a civil suit on same facts. No case as alleged
is made out.
On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned order and the FIR
registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar deserve to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant in addition to the grounds
contended that the order dated 24.04.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1094/2017
was not complied with. The detailed affidavit verifying the averments in the
complaint was not filed by the complainant. The dispute is invariably civil in
nature, as it relates to recovery of damages and taxation, therefore, no
cognizable offence is made out. The complainant has not complied with the
law laid down in the case of Priyanka Shrivastava (supra). Therefore, the
impugned order deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
complainant has duly complied with the order dated 24.04.2017 passed in
M.Cr.C. No. 1094/2017. Learned JMFC considered the compliance and
concluded that prima-facie cognizable offence is made out. Therefore, referred
the complaint for investigation to the concerned police station. The petition is
meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
7. Heard both the parties and perused the record.
8. In the case of Priyanka Shrivastava(supra), the Supreme Court
has held that an application u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. seeking registration of FIR
must be supported by an affidavit. The purpose of filing an affidavit in support
of the complaint is to prevent abuse of the process. It was further held that the
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
exercise of power u/S 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requires application of judicial mind
by the Magistrate. It was held that:
29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants
application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking
steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot
invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with
clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens
but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts
are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the
applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart,
in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the
truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the
applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of
applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility
whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing
and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a
statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue
advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section
154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects
should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that
effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application
under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the
application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is
made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for
prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the
authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already
stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate,
regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say
so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family
disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the
cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as
are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate
would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.
9. In the present matter, after remand by the co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 24.04.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1094/2017, the
affidavit dated 08.05.2017(Annexure P-1) was filed. The affidavit verified by
deponent Vajiraj Basvapattan reads that he is posted as Leader in Direct
Taxation and well acquainted with facts of the case. They have filed
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
application u/S 200 r/W 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR u/S 405,
406, 420, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC. The contents of the application are true to
the best of his knowledge which he has gathered from official record. The
affidavit filed in compliance with the order dated 24.04.2017 and in support of
complaint is casual and cursory, aimed at fulfilling the legal lacuna. Thus, the
directions regarding filing of affidavit in compliance with directives laid down
in Priyanka Shrivastava(supra), have not been complied in true spirit.
Further, Learned Magistrate did not consider absence of prior applications
under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3) .
10. The Supreme Court in the case of Binod Kumar Vs. State of
Bihar reported in 2014(10)SCC 663 considered the law laid down by the Apex
Court with regard to quashing of criminal proceedings instituted on criminal
complaint and held as under:
“8. In proceedings instituted on criminal complaint, exercise of the inherent
powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in case where the complaint
does not disclose any offence or is frivolous. It is well settled that the power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly invoked with circumspection, it should be
exercised to see that the process of law is not abused or misused. The settled
principle of law is that at the stage of quashing the complaint/FIR, the High Court
is not to embark upon an enquiry as to the probability, reliability or the
genuineness of the allegations madetherein.
9. In Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, this
Court enumerated the cases where an order of the Magistrate issuing process
against the accused can be quashed or set aside as under:
―(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses
recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no
case against the accused or the complainant does not disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence
which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently
improbable so that no prudent person can ever
reach a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious
and arbitrary having been based either on no
evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects such as, want of
sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like.‖
7NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
The Supreme Court pointed out that the cases mentioned are purely illustrative and
provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can
quash the proceedings.
10. In Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. And Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 736,
this Court has summarised the principles relating to xercise of jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings as under:-
(SCC pp.747-48, para 12)
―12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and
criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several
decisions. To mention a few–Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,1992
Supp (1) SCC 335; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill (1995) 6 SCC
194, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd (1996) 5
SCC 591; State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164, Rajesh
Bajaj v. State NCT of elhi,(1999) 3 SCC 259; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma
(P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd(2000) 3 SCC 269 [pic]Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh (2001)
8 SCC 645 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v.Mohd. Sharaful Haque(
2005) 1 SCC 122. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the
case alleged against the accused.
For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but
without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of
the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is
warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the
process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have
been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to
cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently
improbable.
(iii) The power to quash shall not,however, be used to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with
abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal
ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is
laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have
not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed.
Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so
bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making
out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out:
(a)purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil
wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a
contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking
remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature
and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal
proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial
transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available
or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal
8NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint
disclose a criminal offence or not.‖
11. Referring to the growing tendency in business circles to convert purely
civil disputes into criminal cases, in paragraphs (13) and (14) of the Indian
Oil Corporation‘s case (supra), it was held as under:- (SCC pp.748-49)
―13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression
that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately
protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in
several family disputes also, [pic]leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.,(2000) 2 SCC 636 this Court observed:
(SCC p.643, para 8)
―8. … It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil
nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal
proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law.
Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great
deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court
has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is
to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.
Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse
of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice.‖
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be
prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a
complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being
fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his
remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable,
at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in
accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the
courts, to curb nnecessary prosecutions and harassment of
innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250
CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness
or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it
may.‖
11. Further, in the case of International Advanced Research Centre
for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) & Ors Vs. Nimra Cerglass
Technics Prviate Limited and Anr. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348 held as
under:
13. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is
asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is, as to whether
uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint establish the offence.The
9NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
High Court being superior court of the State should refrain from analyzing the
materials which are yet to be adduced and seen in their true perspective. The
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shouldnot be
exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to
be used sparingly only in rare cases. In a catena of cases, this Court reiterated that
the powers of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly
and quashing a complaint in criminal proceedings would depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case. Vide State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.,
1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; State of T.N. vs.Thirukkural Perumal, (1995) 2 SCC 449;
and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS & Anr.
(2006) 7 SCC 188.
14. In the light of the well-settled principles, it is to be seen whether the allegations
in the complaint filed against ARCI and its officers for the alleged failure to
develop extruded ceramic honeycomb as per specifications disclose offences
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. It is to be seen that whether the
averments in the complaint make out a case to constitute an offence of cheating.
15. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii)
dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable
security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into
a valuable security and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the
inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the essential
ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order to
bring a case for the offence of cheating, it is not merely sufficient to prove that a
false representation had been made, but, it is further necessary to prove that the
representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made in order to
deceive the complainant.
16. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the cheating would
depend upon the intention of the accused at the time of
alleged inducement. If it is established that the intention of the accused was
dishonest at the very time when he made a promise and entered into a transaction
with the complainant to part with his property or money, then the liability is
criminal and the accused is guilty of the offence of cheating. On the other hand, if
all that is established that a representation made by the accused has subsequently
not been kept, criminal liability cannot be foisted on the accused and the only right
which the complainant acquires is the remedy for breach of contract in a civil
court. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the
transaction. In S.W. Palanitkar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 241,
this Court held as under:
―21 ……In order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to
deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was
made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or ishonest
intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act
of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be
presumed as an act leading to cheating.‖
The above view in Palanitkar‘s case was referred to and followed in Rashmi
Jain vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2014) 13 SCC 553.
22. By analysis of terms and conditions of the agreement between the
parties, the dispute between the parties appears to be purely of civil nature.
It is settled legal proposition that criminal liability should not be imposed in
disputes of civil nature. In Anil Mahajan vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. & Anr.
(2005) 10 SCC 228, this Court held as under:-
10
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
―6. … A distinction has to be kept in mind between mere breach of
contract and the offence of cheating. It depends upon the intention of
the accused at the time of inducement. The subsequent conduct is not
the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal
prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent, dishonest intention is
shown at the beginning of the transaction.
8. The substance of the complaint is to be seen. Mere use of the
expression ―cheating‖ in the complaint is of no consequence. Except
mention of the words ―deceive‖ and ―cheat‖ in the complaint filed
before the Magistrate and ―cheating‖ in the complaint filed before the
police, there is no averment about the deceit, cheating or fraudulent
intention of the accused at the time of entering into MOU wherefrom it
can be inferred that the accused had the intention to deceive the
complainant to pay….We need not go into the question of the
difference of the amounts mentioned in the complaint which is much
more than what is mentioned in the notice and also the defence of the
accused and the stand taken in reply to notice because the
complainant’s own case is that over rupees three crores was paid and
for balance, the accused was giving reasons as above-noticed. The
additional reason for not going into these aspects is that a civil suit is
pending inter se the parties for the amounts in question.‖
23. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, this court
observed that civil liability cannot be converted into criminal liability and
held as under:-
―13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression
that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately
protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in
several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could
somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood
of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure
through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 this Court
observed: (SCC p.643, para 8)
‘8. … It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature,
has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are
not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For
the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain
principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this
section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.‖ 14. While no one
with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking
remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or
persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal
proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law,
should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived
criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that
can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and
11NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under
Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or
frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be
that as it may.‖
25. The above decisions reiterate the well settled principles that while
exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not for
the High Court to appreciate the evidence and its truthfulness or
sufficiency inasmuch as it is the function of the trial court. High
Court’s inherent powers, be it, civil or criminal matters, is designed to
achieve a salutary public purpose and that a court proceeding ought
not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. If the averments in the complaint do not constitute an
offence, the court would be justified in quashing theproceedings in the
interest of justice .
12. The factual scenario of the present case is considered in the light
of aforestated proposition of law. The complainant company has issued Steady
Rest Machine No. 1, Steady Rest Machine No. 2 and Turbine Wheels for repair
to the accused. It was a contractual assignment of the machines to the accused
for repair within a stipulated time. The accused failed to deliver the aforestated
machines after repairs within the stipulated time. The dispute regarding
payment of taxes and Customs Duty arose between the parties. Thereafter, the
complainant alleged criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery against the
accused. It is not in dispute that the complainant had also filed a civil suit for
recovery of Rs. 23 lakhs as damages against the defendant/accused for the
same transaction.
13. As stated in the complaint, the complainant company had business
transaction with M/S Jayesh Tools Enterprises for last five years. The
complainant used to issue machinery for repair on returnable basis as per SCZ
norms and used to purchase spare parts from M/S Jayesh Tools Enterprises.
14. The allegations contained in the complaint itself show that both
the parties were involved in commercial transaction regarding repair of Steady
Rest Machine and other equipments. Dishonest intention of default or cheating
from very inception is missing in the allegations contained in the complaint.
There is no allegation that the accused intended to deceive at the very inception
when the Steady Rest Machine No.1 was given to him for repair. Had the
12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:461
complainant suspected such an intention to deceive on the part of the accused,
he would not have issued Steady Rest Machine No. 2 and Turbine Wheels to
the accused for repair after failure to deliver Steady Rest Machine No.1 within
time. There is no allegation that the accused has made any false and dishonest
representation inducing the complainant to issue Steady Rest Machine No. 1
and later Steady Rest Machine No. 2 for repair to him. The accused failed to
keep his promise and thereby committed breach of contract as alleged by the
complainant. The filing of civil suit by the complainant manifest that the
complainant himself considers the dispute being predominantly of civil in
nature. However, in order to pressurize the accused, apparently, the criminal
complaint is filed by giving it colour of criminal intent.
15. Thus, in view of the aforestated facts and circumstances, as
revealed by the material on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the prosecution of petitioners/accused would be an abuse of process of the
Court. It is a fit case for invoking inherent powers u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. to curb
unnecessary prosecution for inter-se commercial dispute between the parties,
which is predominantly of civil nature.
16. Consequently, the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Distt. Indore in R.C.T. No. 561/2016 and consequent
registration of FIR at Crime No. 0/2017 at P.S. Sadar Bazar, Indore for offence
punishable u/S 406,420,468, 470, 471 and 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.
17. Petition stands disposed off.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh/-
SEHAR Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
ou=BENCH AT INDORE,
HASEE
2.5.4.20=900ec6fc757798eaeb3df7a3
2860bd3298415a4d1c2d91436213f2
568c8f27da, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E7DBBA955B262C04B
N
8413251CE7FB6F0B7DBA610C57F15
59C08BF6C6F5DD40D4, cn=SEHAR
HASEEN
Date: 2025.01.08 18:56:50 +05’30’