474n CriininalMisc NoM49156 of 2006 1 INTHE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA CHANDIGARH CrLMisc No M79156 of 2006 DateofDecisionMarch 10 2010 Mls Saritu Rawut and another m C Versus 0 0 I C StuteofHaryanuand another Respondents I Z Coran Honble Mrsustice Subina Present MrSameerRathore Advocate for Mr SumeetGoel Advocate for thepetitioners Mr3enniwalDeputy Advocate GeneralHaryana I Mr Aman Bahri Advocate for No 08 O SabinueJ 7 Z This petitionhas been filed under Section 482 of the Code of a Criminal short CrCJ for quashing of ilnpugned critnillal complaintdated 23 006 6AnnexureP39 filed by No under Sections 40640942034 120B of the lndian Pellal Code IPC for shor4 and Order dated 1932006 6Annexure P5 passedby the Judicial MgistrateGurgaonand all arlSlng therefrom An agreementdated 17A003 4nnexureI known as outbound telenarketingagreelnentwas entered between Mls CapitalFinancc and 1 respondent No 0mplainant company The agreementwas to continue for a periodof SlX months unless it was terininated earlier as per the . Rashmi 2012.07.05 13: 50 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 475n 9r CriminalMisc NoM89156 of2006 2 The businessbetweenthe CapitalFinance and No continuedfor some tilne but thereafterrespondent No was asked byMls Capital17inanceto terminate the contract forthwith The contract was terminatedon 1782003 RespondentNo2 filed a under Sections 406 40942034 read with Section 12043 IPC dated 232006 Annexure P31againstthe Mls CapitalFinance Afler the r Nol lcd its evidence the petitioners 0 were orderedto be summoned under Section 420 lPC vide order dated 0 1932006 0AnnexureP59 I C5 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submittedthat thc dispute betweentheparties was civil in nature and hence thecolnplaintin question Z was Iiable to quashed The had resorted 10 criminal n Lr as his entirecivil claim if any hadbecometime barred I Learned counsel ofor No2 has submitted that an 08 offence under Section420 IPC was madeout against thepetitioners Qo The case of the as per the complaint in brief is that V7 Z 111 the month of March 2003 complainanthad Mls Capital Ll Finance for businesspurposes On 17A72003 enteredinto an outbound agreeinentwith Mls CapitalFinance The payment as perthe agreeinentwasto be made on weeklybasis in advanceand with penalinterest in case of late payment The partiesduly acted upon the agreelnent111e was providingits services to the satisfaction of the accusedand theyin turn paidmeaere sumS 111intervals Majorityof the invoices amount for the SCrvices renderedby the complainant remained unpaiddespiterequests Hence the unilateral and illegaldecision of the Mls CapitalFinance instructing coinplainant to shut down the campaignand 0 . Rashmi 2012.07.05 13: 50 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 476n e9 CriininalMisc NoMe79156of2006 3 refusal to pay arrears came as severe financial blow 10 the company Despiterepeatedreminders and communications the did not receive anv payments The accused with mala flde intention to cheat the into providingservices under false proiniseof clearance of arrears as well as promptpayment The accuseddid not intend to pay anyamount to the and had tried to cheat the Instead of makingthe paymentas per the 0 agreelnent was sent e mail by petitioner Nol allegingthat the 0 qualityofservices providedbythe was not good I C In State of Harvana VS Bhaian Lal 1992 Supp I SupreineCourt Cases 335 theApexCourt hasheld as underl Z The following of cases can be stated by way of tr illustration wherein the powerunder Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC Can be Cl8 00 exercised by the High Court either 10 preventabuse of the 7 processof any court or otherwiseto secure the endsofjustice Z thoughit may not be possible to laydown any preciseclearly dened and suHiciently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigidformulae and to givean exhaustivelist oflnyriadkinds ofcases wherein such power should be exercised l 9Wherethe allegatlons inadein the flrst informationreportOr the even if theyare taken at their face value and acceptedin their entiretydo not prilnafacie constitute any Offenceor make out a case against the accused 29Wherethe allegations lll the flrst information report and other materials if any the FIR do not disclose a . Rashmi 2012.07.05 13: 50 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 477n 1 CriminalMisc Nolvla79156of2006 4 cognizableoffence justi67ing an by police oflicers under Section 15661ofthe Code exceptunder an order of a Magistrate within the purviewof Section 15562of the Code 39Wherethe uncontrovertedallegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidencecollected in supportofthe same do t C n6 disclose the commissionof any offence and lnake out a case 0 against the accused 0 649Wherethe allcgationsin the FIR do not constitute a C cognizableoffence but constltute only a noncoenizable I offence no investigatlotl1S permittedby a Police Officer Z without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section ofthe Code I 65Wherethe allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so c6 absurd and inherently on the basis of which no QO prudentperson can ever reach a justconclusion that there 1S 7 Z suftlcient groundfor proceeding againstthe accused there is an expresslegalbar engraftedin any of the provisionsof the Code or the concerned Act lnder which a criminal proceeding lS instituted9to the institution and continuance of the andlor where there is speclOc prOVlSlon ln the Code or the concerned Act providing efficaciousredressfor thegrievanceofaggricved party 67Wherea criminal proceeding is manifestly auended with 1 lnala fide andlor wherethe 1S maliciously J instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaktngvengeance on . Rashmi 2012.07.05 13: 50 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 478n CritninalMisc NoM79156 of2006 5 theaccused and with a view to spitehim due to privateand personalgrudge We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashinga criminal should be exercised very and with and that too in the rarest of rarecases that the court will not bejustified in embarking upon 1 l an enquiry as to the reliabilityor or otherwise of 0 the allegationsmade in the FIR or the complaint and that the 0 Or inherent powers do not con fer an arbitrary I C5 jurisdiction on the court to act accordingto its whim or I 55 capnce Z The ApexCourt in MdIbrahim and others vs State ofBihar tr and another 369 held as under I Let us now examine whether the of an offence of c cheating are madeout The essential of the offence of m 7 IIcheatingare as followsl6l9deception of a person either by Z makinga false Or inisleading or bv dishonest J concealment or by any other act or omission ii9 fraudulent or dishonest inducementofthat personto elther deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionallyinduce that person so deceiveco do Or omit to do anythingwhich he would not do or omit if he were not So deceived and iii9 such act or omission causing or is Iikelv to cause damage or harm to that person in bodymind or property To constitute an offence under Section 420 there should not only be cheatingbut as a consequence of such . Rashmi 2012.07.05 13: 50 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 479n CriminalMisc NoM79156 of2006 6 the accusedshould have dishonestlyinduced the person deceived6i9to deliver any propertyto any person or 6ii9to make alter or destroywhollyor 111parta valuable securityor anything signedor sealed and which is capableof beingconverted into a valuablesecurityl 73 A perusalof the complaintleads to an inference that the dispute m between the parties1S civil in nature The disputeis regarding non 0 payments of dues Hence the for an offence under Section 420 C0 lPC are not inade out in the facts and circumstancesof the presentcase C Partieshad carried on businessin terms 6AnnexurePll and 111 I case any of the terms of the agreementhad been violated the remedy Z availableto theaggrievedpartywas civil in nature Hence the continuance are nothingbut an abuseofprocess of Cour I Accordinglythis petitionis allowec Criminal Complaint 08 m 6Annexure P31as well as order dated l932006 AnnexureP51 47 arequashed Z Om Sabinal Judge March 10 2010 1 arya rS 11 Vb l CJ 1 . Rashmi 2012.07.05 13: 50 Scanned True Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document