IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No. M- 4005 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.8.2010 M/s Trend Automobiles (P) Limited through its Managing Director,Civil Lines,Deoria, Uttar Pradesh and others ......Petitioners Vs. M/s Escorts Limited, 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad through its Managing Director. ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. PRESENT: Mr.Kamal Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Geeta Gulati, Advocate, for respondent. **** ORDER The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 631 dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure P-9) and summoning order dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure P-10). Notice of motion was issued on 8.3.2010. Mr.Kamal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter is purely of civil nature as the parties to the agreement are claiming dues from each other and the present complaint has been filed just to put pressure upon the petitioners, which is totally an abuse of the process of law. Mr.Sharma further submits that the complainant earlier filed a complaint at New Delhi which was cancelled by the police by considering the same as purely civil dispute between the parties. He further argues that Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [2] the Court at Faridabad has no jurisdiction as the sale agreement was entered into between the parties at New Delhi and registered office of the petitioners-Company is also at Delhi and the respondents-Company is working at Deoria in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Sharma also submits that as per terms and conditions of the sale agreement, the dispute can be settled in Arbitration proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the notice of the Court that the matter was settled between the parties and both of them reconciled their accounts with certain terms and conditions and those proceedings were signed by both the parties which is clear from the File Note dated 28.5.2004 annexed as Annexure P-6 with the petition. Mr.Sharma also relied upon the judgments reported as Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia V. State of Punjab 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 956 (SC), Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna and another v. Peddi Ravindra Babu 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 506 (SC), Pardeep Kumar v. State of Haryana 1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 791 (P&H) and Amir Chand and another v. Prem Chand 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 491 (P&H) to support his contention. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav 1996(2) RCR (Crl)103 wherein it has been observed that when cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Magistrate and the summons have been issued, then proceedings cannot be Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [3] quashed. Ms.Geeta Gulati learned counsel for the respondent also submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only to give effect to an order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of Court and otherwise to secure the ends of justice but in the present case, none of the circumstances are there. The complaint in the present case is the outcome of pending payment of tractors and spare parts which were entrusted to the petitioners for which necessary documents were produced as preliminary evidence before the trial Court. Ms.Geeta Gulati also submits that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and has also tried to mis- lead the Court by twisting the facts. Certain material facts have been suppressed from this Court regarding non liquidation of the stocks and the balance payment due to the respondents against the sale of tractors and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of clause 3(a) of the Dealer Sales Agreement dated 15.11.1996 signed by the petitioners, it is clearly stipulated and agreed between the parties therein that the company shall be entitled in its absolute discretion to curtail, delete or in any manner vary the territorial limits of the dealer without assigning any reason and any such variations made by the company shall be accepted to the dealer without any objection. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that the agreement was never terminated by the respondents as alleged in the petition and the respondent was interested only in discussing Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [4] or formulating action plan for performance in the coming season but the petitioners were not interested and because of that reason, respondents did not terminate the dealership but the same has occasioned due to refusal of the petitioners to continue the dealership. The petitioners have wrongly claimed recovery of an amount of Rs.11,27,000/- from the respondents- Company whereas the respondents-company is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.28,74,923.95/- from the petitioners. As far as File Note dated 28.5.2004 is concerned, the total outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.76.88 lacs out of which Rs.58.75 lacs was the direct outstanding and Rs.18.13 lacs are outstanding towards Hundies and it was agreed by the petitioners that they will clear the Hundies on due dates which were over and above the direct outstanding amount. On giving assurance by the petitioners, respondents-Company agreed to give refund of Rs.13.72 lacs as interest whereas the respondent- company was neither bound to give nor the petitioners were entitled to claim unless the payment as agreed was to be cleared by the petitioners on due dates. Since the petitioners did not pay the agreed amount as per agreed terms, the petitioners were not entitled to waiver of the interest as mentioned in the file note dated 28.5.2004 Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the agreement entered into between the parties was signed by the petitioners and sent to respondent-Company at Faridabad for final approval for execution by the Company and all the transactions between the parties were carried on from Faridabad and even file note dated 28.5.2004 relied upon by the petitioners was also signed at Faridabad and as such Court at Faridabad has Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [5] jurisdiction to entertain and take cognizance of the complaint filed by the respondent-Company. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary issue that an alternative remedy of revision is available to the petitioners as the impugned summoning order is revisable and without availing an alternative remedy of revision , the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and also submits that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only to prevent abuse of process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice but in the present case, none of the circumstances is there. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that certain material facts have been suppressed and the present petition has been filed on the basis of twisted facts. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the total amount was to the tune of Rs.76.88 lacs, out of which an amount of Rs.58.75 lacs was outstanding and an amount of Rs.18.13 lacs was outstanding towards Hundies and it was agreed by the petitioners that they would clear Hundies on due date and because of that assurance given by the petitioners, the respondent- Company agreed to give refund of Rs.13.72 lacs as interest. The company was neither bound to give nor petitioners were entitled to claim that amount unless the payment, as agreed, is cleared by the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the complaint, impugned summoning order as well as other documents available on the file. Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [6] A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioners have not availed an alternative remedy of revision against the summoning order, as it is revisable order and straightaway petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed and no reason whatsoever has been given as to how the petition is maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show anything as to how the present petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of revision is available to the petitioner. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the matter is of civil nature as parties to the agreement are claiming their dues against each other and the complaint and other proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Admittedly, the summoning order passed by the Magistrate is revisable order and inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked when an alternative remedy of revision is there. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only when there is an abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice but in the present case, the petition has been filed by raising the plea that the dispute is of civil nature. In Balabhadra Dash and another v. State of Orissa and others 199Crl.L.J. 2457 it has been held as under: “ Inherent power is wide in nature and Section 482 in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to preve1 nt abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great restraint. Wider would be the power, greater should Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [7] be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of an accused in a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the previsions of criminal procedure Code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at an interim stage. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge or taking cognizance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demand it, such prayer ought not to be entertained. Even if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examine if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated without bringing the proceeding to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position and subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examine the materials to interfere with the continuation of trial. Therefore, where all the accused persons had an opportunity to advance submissions before the Magistrate that materials on record do not call for framing of charge against them, High Court declined exercise of inherent powers for quashing cognizance. In subordinate authority normally higher authority should not exercise its powers to give same relief.” In Mohan Lal and another v. State, 1974 Crl.L.J.1407, it has been held as under: “ The inherent power of the High Court under that Crl.Misc. No.4005 of 2010 [8] provision, to my mind, cannot be pressed in aid for the purpose of indirectly undoing or modifying an order which is appealable ore revisable and has become final because no appeal or revision was filed against it or having been filed were dismissed thus giving finality to the same. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17th January, 1969 and the appellate order therefrom are not in challenge in these proceedings.” In view of the law position as mentioned above and the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any precedent or provision of law wherein alternative remedy is available, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Keeping in view the facts as mentioned above, admittedly the impugned summoning order is revisable order and petition cannot be adjudicated upon on merits. Hence the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty, if so advised, to raise all pleas before the revisonal Court which have been raised herein. The petition is dismissed with the said liberty. (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Dated: 17.8.2010 raghav