(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 108 OF 1999 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., (Farm Equipment Sector), Worli Road 13, Worli, Bombay. 2. [ENTITY], Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Mumbai, R/o Office, situated at Gateway of India, Mumbai. 3. [ENTITY], Area Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd. (Farm Equipment Sector), Tadiwala Road, Dr. Ramabai Ambedkar road, Pune. 4. [ENTITY], President and Executive Director (Farm Equipment Sector), Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. 5. [ENTITY], Head of Marketing (Farm Equipment Sector), Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. 6. [ENTITY], Deputy General Manager (Farm Equipment Sector), Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY], Nath Automobiles, Ghai Chambers, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Counsel, with Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for respondent No. 1/State. Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for respondent No. 2. WITH [CASE NUMBER] 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., (Farm Equipment Sector), Worli Road 13, Worli, Bombay. 2. [ENTITY], Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:53:02 (2) Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Mumbai, R/o Office, situated at Gateway of India, Mumbai. 3. [ENTITY], Area Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd. (Farm Equipment Sector), Tadiwala Road, Dr. Ramabai Ambedkar road, Pune. 4. [ENTITY], President and Executive Director (Farm Equipment Sector), Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. 5. [ENTITY], Head of Marketing (Farm Equipment Sector), Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., Worli, Mumbai. 6. [ENTITY], Deputy General Manager (Farm Equipment Sector), Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., VERSUS Worli, Mumbai. 1. The [ENTITY] PETITIONERS 2. [ENTITY], Nath Automobiles, Ghai Chambers, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. WITH [CASE NUMBER] 1. [ENTITY], Executive, Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Ltd., (Farm Equipment Sector) Marketing Division, Worli, Road No. 13, Mumbai. 2. [ENTITY], Area Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Tractor Division, Area Office, Pune. 3. [ENTITY], Sales Officer, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Tractor Division, Area Office, Pune. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. [ENTITY] 2. The Police Inspector Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:53:02 (3) CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. 3. [ENTITY], R/o Vrandavan Colony, Opp. S.T. Stop, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Counsel, with Mr. [ENTITY], advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. [ENTITY], advocate holding for Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for respondent No. 3. WITH [CASE NUMBER] 1. [ENTITY], Executive, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Farm Equipment Sector, Marketing Division, Varali Road No. 13, Mumbai. 2. [ENTITY], Area Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Tractor Division, Area Office, Pune. 3. [ENTITY], Sales Officer, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Tractor Division, Area Officer, Pune. 4. [ENTITY], Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Appollo Bunder, Mumbai. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. [ENTITY] 2. The Police Inspector, CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad. 3. [ENTITY], R/o Vasai, [ENTITY], Dist. Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS Mr. [ENTITY], Senior Counsel, with Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for the petitioners. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. [ENTITY], advocate, holding for Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for respondent No. 3. AND [CASE NUMBER] Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:53:02 (4) [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY], R/o Plot No. 31, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The [ENTITY] 2. The [ENTITY]. 3. [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY], R/o Vrandavan Colony, Opp. S.T. Stop, Aurangabad. Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. [ENTITY], advocate, holding for Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for respondent No. 3. WITH [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY], R/o Nath Automobiles, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. VERSUS PETITIONER 1. The [ENTITY] 2. The [ENTITY]. RESPONDENTS Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for respondents. WITH [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] s/o [ENTITY], R/o Plot No. 31, N-2, CIDCO, Aurangabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The [ENTITY] 2. The [ENTITY]. RESPONDENTS Mr. [ENTITY], advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], A.P.P. for the respondents. [CORAM : [ENTITY], J.] DATE OF JUDGEMENT RESERVED : 1st September, 2008 DATE OF JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED : 19th September, 2008 Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:53:02 (5) JUDGEMENT :
1. These are two (2) groups of petitions which are being disposed of together in order to avoid overlapping consideration of identical questions of law and facts. The first group of petitions comprise of petitions filed by Mahindra and Mahindra Co. Ltd.
and its officers. Another group of petitions comprise of petitions filed by [ENTITY], who is respondent No. 2 in the first group of petitions.
2. By Writ Mahindra and Mahindra Co.
Petition No. Ltd.
108/1999, petitioners (hereinafter referred to as "M&MC Ltd.", for sake of brevity) and others seek quashing of process issued in and proceedings of a private complaint case instituted by respondent No. 2 - [ENTITY] bearing [CASE NUMBER] pending on file of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.),
Aurangabad, for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT] against them. They filed [CASE NUMBER] seeking production of certain documents in the above writ petition. [ENTITY] and others filed remaining two (2) petitions in the first group seeking quashing of first information reports registered vide [CASE NUMBER] No. [CASE NUMBER] at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT].
3. Petitioner [ENTITY] seeks quashing of first information report registered against him vide [CASE NUMBER], at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT] and first information report registered vide [CASE NUMBER] at Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. His third petition ([CASE NUMBER]) is for anticipatory bail in context of the first information report registered vide [CASE NUMBER] at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad.
4. Indisputably, since 1991, petitioner [ENTITY] was running business as dealer of Tractors of M&MC Ltd., in the name and style as "Nath Automobiles, Aurangabad". The dealership was approved by M&MC Ltd.
as per terms of the dealership agreement. The dealership agreement was to the effect that M&MC Ltd.
would provide tractors and trolley vehicles to Nath Automobiles on cash payment basis. The agreement was to transact business on principal to principal basis.
Admittedly, Nath Automobiles was not agent or subagent of M&MC Ltd. There is no dispute about the fact that M&MC Ltd. raised certain objections regarding working of the proprietary firm run by petitioner [ENTITY] i.e. Nath Automobiles in the year 1996. By letter dated 31st July, 1996, the latter was informed to obtain and provide Letter of Credit (L/C) for Rs.
10 lacs as per the agreement. It appraised Nath Automobiles regarding complaints received from customers pertaining to malpractices adopted in the business and false assurances given regarding delivery of the tractor vehicles. It was further informed to Nath Automobiles that decision was, therefore, taken to terminate dealership agreement as per clause (18) thereof. Petitioner - [ENTITY], however, continued to accept the orders from customers for supply of the tractors. He urged for continuation of the dealership. He also assured to open a Letter of Credit for Rs. 20 lacs in name of M&MC Ltd. By his letter dated 1st October, 1996, he further assured the Company that demand drafts will not be accepted from the customers by him in the name of M&MC Ltd., but all the dealings will be done through the Letter of Credit only. The proposal was accepted on the conditions mentioned in the letter and production of Letter of Credit from the Bank. The arrangement could not be worked out seemingly because he did not produce the Letter of Credit, as assured.
5. In the meanwhile, some of the customers from whom orders were accepted by Nath Automobiles made complaints against the dealer for non-delivery of the vehicles. They made such complaints to the Company.
There was no privity of contract between M&MC Ltd.
and those customers from whom payments were accepted by Nath Automobiles. The concerned officers of M&MC Ltd. naturally advised such customers to approach the dealer. The dealer tossed the buck and eventually told the customers that the vehicles were not supplied by M&MC Ltd. The frustrated customers lodged various complaints at the CIDCO Police Station, Kranti Chowk Police Station at Aurangabad and also at Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar.
6. The dealer lodged first information report at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad against M&MC Ltd and its officers. The dealer - [ENTITY] subsequently instituted a private complaint case ([CASE NUMBER]) alleging that he was duped by M&MC Ltd and its officers. He averred that he had sent twelve (12) demand drafts of Rs. 22,34,256/- to M&MC Ltd. alongwith orders for supply of tractors.
The demand drafts were encashed by M&MC Ltd. and were credited in its account. He averred that inspite of such payments made by him, the tractor vehicles were not supplied by M&MC Ltd. He met the officers of M&MC Ltd., but it was invain. He learnt that the demand drats were credited to the account of M/s Wasan Automobiles, Nasik instead of crediting them to his account. The officers of M&MC Ltd. gave evasive or false replies to his queries. He, therefore, met [ENTITY] and urged to look after his grievances with sympathetic view. He alleged that [ENTITY] told him that since the latter's friend M/s Wasan Automobiles was sued by him, he will have to pay its price. He was threatened that he will be imprisoned.
He, therefore, issued notice dated 08-10-1997 to M&MC Ltd. which was falsely replied on 28-10-1997. It was reiterated by the latter that 12 demand drafts were received from M/s Wasan Automobiles, Nasik and Ahmednagar and not from him. He alleged, therefore, that he was cheated and the amounts sent by him came to be misappropriated by M&MC Ltd. and its officers.
The learned Judicial Magistrate considered the verified statement of complainant - [ENTITY]
- and came to conclusion that a prima facie case was made out for issuance of process under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Hence, process was issued by order dated 12-10-1998. The said order and the proceedings of the private criminal case are being challenged by M&MC Ltd. and others in [CASE NUMBER]. In the same proceedings, an application ([CASE NUMBER]) is filed for production of certain documents.
7. [ENTITY] and others seek to challenge first information report, registered vide [CASE NUMBER] at CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad on a complaint lodged by one of the customers, namely, [ENTITY]. In his complaint, the customer - [ENTITY] alleged that a demand draft of Rs.
2,18,945/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Khultabad was given to proprietor of Nath Automobiles. He did not receive delivery of tractor. He frequently inquired with proprietor - [ENTITY], but was bluffed. The area Manager of M&MC Ltd. was contacted, but he was informed that he should contact proprietor of Nath Automobiles because it was responsibility of the latter to supply the tractor.
He noticed that [ENTITY] had closed business of Nath Automobiles. He felt cheated and, therefore, lodged the first information report. Similarly, customer [ENTITY] lodged first information report, vide [CASE NUMBER], alleging that a demand draft of Rs. 2,89,245/- for purchasing a tractor and trolley was handed over by him to proprietor of Nath Automobiles. The proprietor -
[ENTITY] accepted the demand draft and assured to provide the tractor. Though he several times contacted the proprietor, yet, could not get the tractor vehicle. The proprietor informed him subsequently that the tractor meant to be delivered to him was given to another agriculturist. He inquired with the Sales Officer and the Regional Manager of M&MC Ltd. He was informed that the demand draft sent by him was not received by the Company. Consequently, he lodged the first information report.
8. Petitioner [ENTITY] seeks to challenge the first information reports lodged by customers against him pertaining to non-delivery of the tractors. He alleges that the first information report ([CASE NUMBER]) is lodged against him, though he did not induce complainant [ENTITY] to deliver demand draft for Rs. 2,18,945/-. He alleges that he was at the receiving end because the drafts received by him were forwarded to M&MC Ltd., yet, he did not receive the tractor vehicle for effecting its delivery to customer [ENTITY]. Similarly, he alleges that [CASE NUMBER] registered on basis of complaint lodged by customer [ENTITY] at Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, does not make out any offence against him because he did not receive any demand draft from the said customer.
9. Briefly stated, it is the case of M&MC Ltd and others that [ENTITY], proprietor of Nath Automobiles was not authorized to accept the orders for tractors after termination of dealership agreement vide letter dated 31-07-1996. There was no business relationship between them. Therefore, [ENTITY] had no authority to accept the demand drafts and cheques for M&MC Ltd. The dealership agreement was not revived due to his failure to comply with the conditions and, particularly, since he never furnished Letter of Credit for Rs. 20 lacs. There were several complaints received by M&MC Ltd. about malpractices adopted by him in his conduct of the business. He filed [CASE NUMBER]) for injunction with a view to pressurize M&MC Ltd. He also filed yet another Suit ([CASE NUMBER]) for restraining M&MC Ltd. from appointing any other dealer for Aurangabad district and for mandatory injunction to continue him as dealer. He could not get success.
So, he filed false and frivolous report with the police, but the police did not find any substance in his complaint. He thereafter instituted the private complaint case without any substantial reason. The private complaint case ([CASE NUMBER]) is outcome of malice and would amount to abuse of process of the Court. The stance of M&MC Ltd. and others is that the twelve (12) demand drafts shown in the private complaint case were never tendered by complainant - [ENTITY] and were, in fact, received from M/s Wasan Automobiles, under its covering letters. It is asserted that complainant -
[ENTITY] falsely alleged that he delivered the demand drafts to M&MC Ltd. It is further asserted that due investigation was conducted into the first information report lodged by complainant [ENTITY] and it was revealed that the demand drafts were actually sent by M/s Wasan Automobiles and the vehicles were delivered to Nath Automobiles which were given to the concerned customers. Thus, according to M&MC Ltd. and others, complainant [ENTITY] duped his customers and unnecessarily implicated them in a false private complaint case. Consequently, they urged to quash the said complaint case as well as the first information reports lodged by the customers.
10. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel, appearing for M&MC Ltd and others, would submit that the record clearly goes to pin-point mischief committed by ig complainant [ENTITY], the ex-dealer of M&MC Ltd. He would submit that there was no privity of contract between the customers who had placed orders with the dealer and M&MC Ltd. For, their internal transactions were on principal to principal basis. He would point out from the recitals of the complaint that Nath Automobiles was not agent of M&MC Ltd. and all their transactions were on cash payment basis. He would also point out that dealership of [ENTITY] was duly terminated as per letter dated 31-07-1996 due to his misconduct in the dealership business. He contended that the private complaint case instituted by the dealer -
[ENTITY] - is no short of abuse of process of the Court. He would submit that no offence is made out from the averments made in the complaint. He would further submit that the learned Magistrate ought not to have issued the process without proper verification of the fact situation pertaining to sending of the twelve (12) demand drafts by the dealer
- [ENTITY]. Per contra, Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel, appearing for dealer - respondent No. 3 would submit that the orders were accepted by the dealer while his application for continuation of the dealership was pending and, therefore, it was duty of M&MC Ltd. to provide the vehicles as per the demand drafts forwarded to it. He would submit that the averments in the private complaint case may be proved during the trial, but the same cannot be discarded at the inception. He argued that [ENTITY] was duped by M&MC Ltd. in connivance with M/s Wasan Automobiles and, therefore, issuance of the process in the private complaint case is well justified.
11. What transpires from the record is that there was complaint about malpractices adopted by the dealer
- [ENTITY] in his business of dealership.
His dealership agreement was terminated by letter dated 31-07-1997. It is conspicuous that there was no direct business agreement between the customers and M&MC Ltd. I mean to say, there was no privity of contract between M&MC Ltd. and the customers. The practice was that [ENTITY] used to accept orders from the customers as authorized dealer and used to forward such orders to M&MC Ltd., with the payments. The latter used to then supply the tractors and trolleys as per the demand on receipt of entire consideration amount. The dealer only used to get commission. The dealer vaguely alleged that he sent the twelve (12) demand drafts for Rs. 22,34,256/-, alongwith the details of required tractor vehicles to M&MC Ltd. He did not give details of such payments alongwith details of forwarding letters, names of customers for whom the payments were made and acknowledgement received from M&MC Ltd. in the context of each of such payment. No receipt of such payment is produced on record.
12. The averments in the private complaint case would show that since 1991 till March, 1996, the business transactions were properly and smoothly conducted. Obviously, it goes without saying that there was absolutely no inducement held out by M&MC Ltd. and others with dishonest intention to defraud the dealer - [ENTITY] after April, 1996 onwards to make the payments. Nor it can be said that the latter entrusted such amount with M&MC Ltd. of which criminal breach of trust was committed. The documents placed on record would show that M&MC Ltd.
received letters from M/s Wasan Automobiles alongwith the relevant demand drafts shown in the complaint application.
13. The record would show, including the tenor of first information report ([CASE NUMBER]) lodged by one of the customers, namely, [ENTITY] that the demand drafts were forwarded to M&MC Ltd. by M/s Wasan Automobiles. It is explicit from the record that the dealer - [ENTITY] allegedly indulged in malpractices in the conduct of his business. He accepted demand drafts from his customers. He was not authorized to deal in the business after termination of the dealership agreement. He had managed to take help of a broker by name [ENTITY]. He gave the demand drafts of his customers to said [ENTITY] (broker). The latter submitted those demand drafts to M/s Wasan Automobiles. A copy of letter (Annex-E) dated 21st May, 1997 would show that details of payments obtained from the broker were submitted by M/s Wasan Automobiles to M&MC Ltd. Thus, it prima facie seems that the tractors delivered to M/s Wasan Automobiles were given to the said broker who in his turn, sold them to third parties with connivance of the ex-dealer
- [ENTITY]. It appears that police investigation was carried out in the context of first information lodged by [ENTITY] against M&MC Ltd. and others. It appears further that there was no privity of contracts as such between the customers who are agriculturists but ultimately six (6) of them were provided with the tractors by the M&MC Ltd. on humanitarian ground. An affidavit is filed by [ENTITY], an officer of M&MC Ltd. in this behalf.
14. Coming to the averments in the complaint of [ENTITY], it need not be reiterated that except vague statement that the twelve (12) demand drafts were forwarded by him to M&MC Ltd., there is nothing to show that actually, he made such payments.
Indeed, after 31st July, 1996, he had no legal authority to work as dealer. Assuming that he was hoping to get continuation of dealership, then also it does not stand to reason that he would forward the demand drafts without maintaining proper office record, obtaining of acknowledgement and receipts for such payments. It is pertinent to note that in his Suits, which were filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Aurangabad, he never asserted that he had forwarded the demand drafts worth Rs. 22,34,256/-
to M&MC Ltd. and, yet, had not received the vehicles.
It is further worthy to be noted that his letter dated 01-10-1996 (P-165) also does not show the payments which were made before issuance of the said letter.
The averments in para 3 of the complaint case would show that atleast five (5) such demand drafts were issued prior to 01-10-2006. Had he been deprived of the delivery of tractors pertaining to such five (5) demand drafts, then he would have mentioned such a fact in his letter regarding fresh proposal put forth by him. On the other hand, he assured that the delivery of tractors would be cleared regarding the orders received uptill 30th September, 1996. He further assured that there will be no complaint from the customers regarding delivery and payment in case the proposal for dealership is accepted by M&MC Ltd.
15. There appears good deal of substance in the contention of Mr. [ENTITY] that the ex-dealer instituted the private complaint case by way of pressure tactics when he could not get any relief in his Suits. There is no averment ig in the complaint that any false representation was made to the complainant - [ENTITY] on the basis of which he was induced to part with alleged twelve (12) demand drafts. The provisions of [SECTION] are also not attracted in as much as M&MC Ltd. is neither a public servant,nor a banker or broker or agent. The said Company could not be termed as agent vis-a-vis complainant - [ENTITY]. Obviously, there is no reason to infer that criminal breach of trust was committed in respect of the amounts sent under the twelve (12) demand drafts even if it is to be assumed that such averments represent a disputed question of fact. There is no tangible evidence to infer commission of any forgery or fabrication of any document by M&MC Ltd. and others. Therefore, the criminal complaint for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] is without foundation. Under these circumstances, the private complaint application of [ENTITY] is an action which amounts to abuse of process of the Court.
16. The learned Senior Counsel seeks to rely on "[PRECEDENT].
The Apex Court held that where allegations in the complaint read as a whole did not indicate, expressly or impliedly, any intentional deception on the part of the appellants ig right from the beginning of the transaction, continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellants would amount to an abuse of process of the Court. The exercise of powers under [SECTION] of the [ACT] in such case was held proper. It was held that the categories of cases enumerated in "[PRECEDENT] were not exhaustive.
Reliance is also placed on "[PRECEDENT] The Apex Court held that where the complaint did not disclose any offence either under [SECTION] or [SECTION] of the [ACT] and that the averments showed existence of only a civil dispute, allowing of investigation to continue would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Further reliance is placed on "Ashok Ashok Chaturvedi and others vs. Shitul H. Chanchani and another" (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 698,
698 in which similar view is expressed.
17. In "[PRECEDENT] the Apex Court held that power of the Court to discharge the accused at the stage of framing of charge or existence of remedy of appeal and revision would not create a bar to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] or [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It is further held that while summoning an accused, the Magistrate ought to apply judicial mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. It is observed :
"Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise ig and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
18. The learned advocate for the applicant, seeks to rely on "[PRECEDENT] wherein the Apex Court observed that merely because remedy by way of civil suit is available, would not be an impediment in maintaining criminal complaint, yet, such remedy would be available provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged. It was held that the facts in the given case did not show element of deception or fraud or dishonest inducement. Hence, the complaint was held liable to be quashed.
19. In "[PRECEDENT], the Apex Court considered the scope of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It has been held that the categories of cases in which such power can be exercised are not restricted to those referred to in "[ENTITY]'s"
Lal case ([PRECEDENT] In "[PRECEDENT] the Apex Court held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction enumerated in [SECTION] ig of the [ACT]. In "[PRECEDENT] the Apex Court considered the scope of [SECTION] of the [ACT] in the
context of the facts of the said case.
20. Mr. [ENTITY], learned Counsel, referred to "[PRECEDENT], "[PRECEDENT], "Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Rajvir Industries Ltd. & others"
2008 DGLS (Soft) 31 and "[PRECEDENT]. In "[PRECEDENT]"
others (supra), the Apex Court held that ordinarily, a defence though, a plausible one, should not be considered while deciding the application under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. It is further observed that the High Court should not enter in to disputed questions of fact. At the same time, the Apex Court held that the
documents of unimpeachable character can be considered to find out whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the Court or that the complaint is merely filed to harass the accused. It is observed :
"Ordinarily, a defence of an accused although appears igto be plausible should not be taken into consideration for exercise of the said jurisdiction. Yet again, the High Court at that stage would not ordinarily enter into a disputed question of fact. It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court or that the complaint petition is filed for causing mere harassment to the accused. While we are not oblivious of the fact that although a large number of disputes should ordinarily be determined only by the civil courts, but criminal cases are filed only for achieving the ultimate goal namely to force the accused to pay the amount due to the complainant immediately. The Courts on the one hand should not encourage such a practice; but, on the other, cannot also travel beyond its jurisdiction to interfere with the proceeding which is otherwise genuine. The Courts cannot also lose sight of the fact that in certain matters, both civil proceedings and criminal proceedings would be maintainable."
21. It is ig not necessary to elaborately set out ratio of other case-law referred to by Mr. [ENTITY].
Suffice it to say that the criminal prosecution may be quashed when there is material on record to infer that continuation thereof would amount to abuse of process of the Court. It may be quashed when it is found that continuation thereof would result into undue harassment of the accused persons and cause miscarriage of justice. Considering the fact situation obtained in the matters under consideration, I am of the opinion that continuation of the private complaint case instituted by complainant [ENTITY] would amount to abuse of process of the Court. For, the averments in the complaint and the other unimpeachable documentary evidence would show that no offence is made out against M&MC Ltd. and others. So also, the continuation of first information reports ([CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER]) against applicants [ENTITY] and others would amount to abuse of process of the Court in as much as there was no privity of contract between the concerned complainants and M&MC Ltd. The application ([CASE NUMBER]) is only to allow the production of certain documents, which needs to be allowed in the interest of justice.
In this view of the matter, all the above petitions in first group will have to be allowed.
22. Corollary ig of foregoing discussion is that the petitions in the second group, except [CASE NUMBER], must fail. The first information reports lodged against ex-dealer [ENTITY], by the customers, cannot be quashed. For, admittedly, he accepted demand drafts from them and failed to deliver the tractor vehicles as promised by him. Secondly, it appears that he gave the demand drafts in question to a broker, who, in turn, gave them to M/s Wasan Automobiles. There is prima facie evidence to infer financial misdeeds committed by the ex-dealer - [ENTITY] in this behalf.
Consequently, the petitions in the second group, except [CASE NUMBER], will have to be dismissed.
23. In the result, all the petitions in the first group (i.e. [CASE NUMBER], [CASE NUMBER], [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]) are allowed. The private complaint case ([CASE NUMBER]) and the first information reports ([CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER]) are quashed as against applicants. The petitions in the second group (i.e. [CASE NUMBER]) are dismissed. However, [CASE NUMBER] in the second group is allowed in terms of interim order rendered therein. The ig anticipatory bail granted therein is continued till filing of charge-sheet or final report as the case may be.
[ [ENTITY] ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP108-99-GROUP