Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 21.10.2008 K.Jayram ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.Deepak A.Masih, Attorney of the petitioner. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner as a Chairman of Company called India Household and Health Care Limited (for short “IHHL”) entered into a contractual relationship with a foreign based multinational company Hyundai Corporation. In terms of the said agreement, IHHL, which is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, entered into an agreement for exclusive marketing/manufacturing rights of the Mobile Phone Handsets in the India Territory with the respondent Hyundai Corporation, a South Korean Company. Copy of the said agreement dated 8.9.2004 has been appended with the present writ petition as Annexure P1. As per the petitioner, the Hyundai Corporation is a company registered in the Republic of South Korea and is one of the leading manufacturers and distributors of various electronic goods and automobile products in various countries across the world. Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 2 The case of the petitioner is that IHHL had acted upon the agreement and started making payment to Hyundai Corporation and the IHHL had paid large amount to Hyundai than what it collected from all other distributors. On the basis of the petition filed by respondent No.2, this Court passed an order dated 21.2.2007 (Annexure P6), whereby this Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh to inquire into the matter and take appropriate action on the representation (Annexure P8) appended to the petition filed by respondent No.2. The grievance of respondent No.2 was that the said respondent was allured in investing Rs.ten lacs for distributorship of mobile telephone handsets after entering into an agreement. The complaint was made by the said respondent on 25.1.2007 to SHO of Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh for registration of a case against respondents No.3 to 6 in the petition filed by respondent No.2. On the basis of the said order passed by this Court, an FIR No.139 dated 5.4.2007 has been registered. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.8.2007, the petitioner has issued notice to the Presidents, Information and Telecommunication Division and Finance Division, Hyundai Corporation, Seoul Korea, inter-alia, making the following demands:- “16.As a result of this, our client had suffered incomprehensible loss in terms of money and business reputation both and they are entitled to be compensated for the same. 17.We strongly intimate you that it is not a case of Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 3 simple business dispute but it is an act of wholesome cheating by your company and every body responsible for this deserves to be prosecuted criminally. We, finally, hereby, call upon you to refund the principal amount of US $ 1.125 million along with an interest of 18% per annum and a sum of 5 million US $ as damages on account of loss incurred by your client in setting nation wide infrastructure for the purpose of carrying out the business and further sum of 2 million US $ on account of loss of reputation, good will and business relations with the distributor within 30 days from the receipt of this notice failing which we will be constrained to initiate all legal action including civil, criminal and tortuous against your management and the company.” The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.PC for issuance of appropriate directions/guidelines to Union of India and for quashing of the aforesaid FIR. The case of the petitioner is that the Government of India should issue the guidelines to meet out an eventuality when a foreign multinational runs away with the Indian money. Petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR as the same is an abuse of process of law and the personal liberty of the petitioner is curtailed on account of lodging of such FIR. In support of such contention, counsel for the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 4 has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as G.Sagar Suri and another v. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 636; Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others. v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2341 and M/s Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.834 of 2002 decided on 20.7.2006. In respect of the first contention of the petitioner for directing the Government of India to issue appropriate guidelines to take necessary steps when a foreign multinational runs away with the Indian money and in respect of the refund of the money taken from the Indian resident(s)/Company, suffice it to say that such policy matters fall in the economic policy domain of the Government of India and are beyond the judicial purview of this Court. It is for the Government of India or such other competent authority to take decision in this regard. The said prayer is beyond the scope of judicial review of this Court. Hence, we do not find that any relief, in this regard, can be granted to the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner for quashing of the FIR is that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute, therefore, initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. As the civil relief cannot be permitted to be raised under the guise of a criminal offence, therefore, the initiation of proceedings by lodging the FIR against the petitioner is totally unwarranted. As mentioned above, the petitioner has entered into an agreement regarding distributorship of mobile telephone handsets Civil Writ Petition No.17631 of 2008 5 and its related accessories with the Company in Korea. In the notice dated 20.8.2007, it is the case of the petitioner himself that it is not a simple business dispute, but an act of wholesome cheating. Petitioner has sought refund of the principal amount in the said notice. As a matter of fact, a perusal of this notice would show that the petitioner himself has levelled the allegations of initiation of criminal proceedings against the Company incorporated in Korea. It is the petitioner, who has entered into an agreement with the said Company, therefore, to argue that in respect of money received from respondent No.2, it is the civil dispute, whereas, in respect of petitioner, it is a criminal offence. In fact, the allegations are against the Director of IHHL and it would be matter of investigation in respect of role of the petitioner, Director of IHHL or of Director of Hyundai Corporation. As on today, an FIR has been lodged. Further investigations are required to be carried out to find out whether any criminal offence has been committed by the petitioner or any other Director of IHHL. At this stage, we do not find that any inference can be drawn that it is only a civil dispute, which may warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings or to return a finding that such proceedings are an abuse of process of law. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and, therefore, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.10.2008 (NAWAB SINGH) AS JUDGE