”M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILA PUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.364 of 2007 PETITIONER: Arun Bagla V Versus 'Gulab Jain and another RESPONDENTS: N y Post for gronouncement of order on 24‘“ August; 2009 Sdl- T.P. SHARMA udg --0 7% 1 . , ‘ Jg 248209 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Misc. Petition No.364 of 2007 Arun Bag!a, S/o Radheshyam Bagla, aged 45 years, Assistant General, Manager, Kajaria Pius Ltd., Main Branch J/1B/1 Extension, Mohan Cooperative Industrial State, Mathra Road, New Delhi. Versus Guiab Jain, S/o Lalchand Jain, aged 46 years, R/o Gokul Apartment, Choubey Colony, Raipur (CG) State bf Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Sarswati Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur(CG) {Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 of the Code of riminal Procedure 1973} PETITIONER/: (Accused) RESPONDENTS/: (Complainant) St ' Preen: Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.P. Sharma, counsel for respondent No.1. ‘ L , M'r.,Akhil Mishra, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent o.. Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORDER (Passed on 24th August, 2009) 1. This, petition isfor quashment of the criminal proceeding pending in Criminal Complaint Case No.83/2007 before the Judicial Magistrate (First Class, Raipur in connection with offence punishable under Sections 384, 418, 420, 294 & 506B read with Section 34 of the I ‘ I_.P.C.’against the petitioner. I I 2. Quashment of criminal proceeding is prayed on the ground that if the .entire allegation made in the complaint is admitted in its face value, even then conviction of the petitioner would not be possible under the law, therefore, continuance of such proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. ’3.) Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition for quashment under .V Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are that according to the allegation of the complainant/respondent No.1, respondent No.1 is the promoter b uilders of Guru Ghasidas Project and he is the attorney of the said u C , V N2 2 (23 he present petitioner and another co—accuse M. Ravmdran are the officers of KaJana Plus Limited OrlgmaHy on 12- 4 2001 the complainant and the accused persons entered Into an I agreement retatlng to shop Nos 35 36 & 37 for rent for a period of nine years and monthiy rent was decided as Rs.60,000/-. Since January, 2003 the accds'ed persons stopped paying rent and when the rent was demanded by the complainant, the accused persons d prOJect ‘ created pressure for execution of fresh agreement by reducing the rental amount from Rs 6O 000/ per month to Rs 50 000/ per month. The accused persons dishonestly by cheating prepared a V Statement of account and compeiied the complainant for signing over the statement of account and thereby they put the complainant to wrongful loss Finally, the accused persons left the tenanted acCommodation, and accused M. Ravmdran abused and criminally intimidated the complainant and also told that he has committed the ' aforesaid offence at the instance of the present petitioner and other accused persons. Lastly, complaint was filed by the complainant.‘ After making necessary enquiry under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., the. ' ‘Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur has taken cognizance against all the accused persons vide order dated 9—2-2007. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned, copy of the complaint, copies of statements under Sections 200—202 of the Cr.P.C., copy of lease agreement and other documents. _5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued tat respondent No 1 Gulab Jain is not the Director or any authorized officer of Akhll Bharatlya Guru GhaSIdas Plaza or promoter builder of Akhll Bharatlya Guru GhaSIdas Plaza and respondent No 1 Is havmg no locus standi to prosecute the complaint on behalf of M/s Bhilai Builders Pvt Ltd or Akhil Bharatiya Guru GhaSidas Plaza If the allegation made in the complaint is accepted in its face value, even ‘then no conViction of the petitioner would be pos5ible The complainant has not made any allegation against the present petitioner there may be allegation against another co accused M Ravmdran but not against the petitioner Therefore, continuation of ' criminal proceeding against the petitioner Will be abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter ~ h L)o. I Thelapani Raghavaiah v. Station House Officer & Ors.1 in which it has been heid by the Apex Court that if the complaint primarily makes out a civii dispute're’iating to measurement, High Court is justified in quashing the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P'. Sadasivan & Anr.2 in which it has been held' by the Apex Court that although a person has civil as well as l criminal remedies in cases of cheating misappropriation and breach of trust which can run simultaneously. But if a criminal proceeding is nitied ith alein ad hong indiens of criminl iat wout lgg n swi gret a ofen but th q oth/e csin hss t t ets b e te artic given er a fie se se ough magal poin sa ar an for hire purcha thr isteri rceedgs the me e abuS of ur a Hig C ashing e the process of Cot nd h ourt was right in qu tm tion of the C. fces wi an obliue m of aug arament o he rsponden y seizing th enir les und nanc lea he Sec 482 rP.C. e ther hd, earned cunsel fo responnt No. eel i r at t Ct be has gister imal complant t the present petior a eedy to cane th orer' ned by revi available to the eitioner, therefor, urisi he Cou rqre as hethe on the allegio n he mai pm commis ofence at the pet pe/a made out or ot. Learne c fure ubmi at e laint revls that the prese e ngwith o-cc h netl d e sent petitio i o ntaa. For xein inhent th pre n s nt maiinble ercisg the er jdction, t rt is euid to see to wr atn made i t coplnt, ria facie case for sion of f gains resn etitionrccused is n cd ounsel thr sts th th comp ea nt ptitioner alo' other caused as dishosy an by cheating suceeded in exution o the reee by reat pressure. Witnesses have supported the allegation made in the complaint and in absence of any contra allegation/material for consideration, there is no case for quashment of the criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioner. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and others3 in which the Apex Court has held that in case of prima facie commission of offence criminal proceeding cannot be quashed only on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature. Learned counsel further placed reliance in the matter of Mahesh 2007 SAR (Civil) 416 sc 2 2001 (2) Supreme 69 (2006) 6 scc 736 6. On th o an l o r de 1 vehmnty/ agued th he our low reed crin i agains itne nd rm hlleg e d impug way of ison is pt e c ec f agmnt cing 1 3 gainst respondent No.1 a . “245. When accused shall be discharged.——(1) If, upon taking a“ the evidence referred to in section 244 the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shaii discharge him. (2') Nothin prevent a Magistrate g in from this section shaii be deemed to i‘ , for reasons to be Charge to be groundless.” considers the any p evious stage of'the discharging case if the accused at recorded by such Magistrate, he alternative remedies available to him. complaint and the statements recorde the Cr.P.C. are admitted in its face va i V r or conviction ’ agafnst the petitioner. 4 (2009) 4 SCC 439 ‘i \ i If the aliegation made in the d under Sections 200—202 of iue, sam oul sufn f e wd be ficiet 5 .Consequently, I do not find any ground for quashment of criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner. The petition is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/— T.P. SHARMA _ Judge 24-8-2009 Soma '0