Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.11097 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Neeraj Agrawal S/O Basudeo Agrawal, Proprietor of Shalimar Cloth Shop Situated at Man Prava Palace, East Boring Canal Road, P.S.- Budha, Colony, District- Patna.. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Pavan Kumar Sharaf S/O Gopal Sharaf Messrs, Madan Lal Pawan Kumar Shop No. 97, 1st Floor Khetan Market, Birla Mandir Rood, Post- Banikpur, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna (Complainant). .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumant Kr. Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yashwant Kr. Chaman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 05-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.7.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate arising from Complaint Case No. 3556(C)/2008 whereby and whereunder the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . 3. The fact of this case moves in this way that the complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 3556(C)/2008 has been filed by one Pawan Kumar Sharaf where it has been alleged that the complainant is a wholesale businessman of cloth having a market in Birla Mandir Road on 1st Floor of Super Khaitan Market, Patna who runs the shop in the name and style of Madan Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11097 of 2011 (3) dt.05-09-2012 2 / 11 2 Lal Pawan Kumar. The complainant was doing the business of cloth with accused, Niraj Agrawal who had/has a shop in the name of style of Shalimar at East Boring Canal Road, Patna. It has been alleged that the owner of Shalimar started taking cloth on credit for the period 16.10.2006 to 21.2.2007 to the total amount of Rs. 1,24, 526/- and out of which Rs. 80,705/- was paid by him but rest amount of Rs. 43,821/- has remained outstanding against the petitioner. For realization of the said amount, the complainant, O.P. No. 2 sent his agent but returned with empty hand. 4. It has been further alleged that on the letter pad of the establishment, the complainant has sent the details of dues vide letter dated 12.7.2007 and requested him to pay the dues amount, the accused petitioner took time to pay back the dues amount in six instalments. After elapse of six months, complainant had made request for payment of money through phone, petitioner did not move to an inch. A legal notice dated 11.9.2008 was given but did not return his money pretending business and family problem and requested for one month time which also elapsed but money dues remained outstanding. When the complainant, himself went to the establishment of the accused petitioner on 20.12.2008, the accused petitioner on looking to him reacted violently and flatly denied payment. 5. After considering the solemn affirmation and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11097 of 2011 (3) dt.05-09-2012 3 / 11 3 statement of two witnesses including the other materials brought, the court below took cognizance under [STATUTE] . 6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is basically a civil dispute and not a criminal dispute, as dispute has cropped up during business transaction in between the petitioner and the O.P. No. 2. 7. The complaint petition itself shows that the petitioner has already paid Rs. 80,705/- and according to them Rs. 43,821/- is outstanding against him rather the fact is that petitioner has already paid excess amount. It is a dispute of accountancy which can be settled on examination of account which cannot be subject matter of criminal trial. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied on judgment reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 1043 (Swami Narendra Brahmachari Vs. State of Bihar). 8. In contra, the O.P. No. 2 has disputed the argument of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is a very cunning man and he has taken the cloth on the business agreement on credit, very smartly some payment has been made and still some payment is outstanding. 9. The court below has rightly taken cognizance under the aforesaid sections. The counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has relied on judgment reported in 2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 705 (Chhajuram Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11097 of 2011 (3) dt.05-09-2012 4 / 11 4 Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar). 10. The court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] and it is not in dispute that the parties had entered into agreement to give the cloth on credit. The O.P. No. 2 was/is running the wholesale business whereas the petitioner was/is running a retail business at East Boring Canal Road. 11. From the complaint petition it appears that there was a smooth business contract between them but it appears that due to some money dispute the present case has been filed. 12. At this stage, this Court cannot look into the defence of the petitioner but will examine the matter in terms, if facts mentioned in complaint petition are taken to entirety, no offence is made out in that circumstance, proceeding of criminal case would be an abuse of process of the Court. 13. This Court in a judgment reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 1043 (Iceberg Industries Limited Vs. State of Bihar) has held, if the statement made in the complaint petition gives an inference of civil litigation, the criminal proceeding is uncalled for and liable to be quashed. Basic facts and laws are as follows:- “Para-10 The complainant admits payment to have been made to him on more than one occasion at the stage of construction. After the dispute has arisen as per Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11097 of 2011 (3) dt.05-09-2012 5 / 11 5 the allegations and he approaches the petitioner he again acknowledges a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/-. But seeks to raise a grievance with regard to non-payment o

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.