HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3677 OF 2000 DATE:18-11-2010 BETWEEN Special Public Prosecutor-cun- Standing Counsel for C.B.I.,Hyderabad. …Petitioner AND Mr.Omprakash Jajoo …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3677 OF 2000 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed to quash the orders of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 27.4.2000 passed in Crl.R.P.No.9 of 2000 whereby the revision filed by the respondent-accused against the dismissal of the discharge application filed by him in Crl.M.P.No.864 of 1999 in C.C.No.302 of 1998 by the III Metrpolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam was allowed and the respondent-accused was discharged from the charge punishable under Section 420 IPC. Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent. It is not in dispute that the respondent-accused is the Proprietor of M/s.East India Bearings Company. The said company was authorized for FAG bearings during 1992 and was supplying different types of bearings to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. During 1991-92, the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant was procuring large number of industrial bearings of different types for plant and machinery installed at the plant. The bearings were procured from different suppliers by calling limited tenders. In response to the tender, dated 5.4.1991, the respondent-accused being the Proprietor of M/s.East India Bearings Company filed quotations for different types of bearings of FAG and other make, and that his quotation was approved by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and number of purchase orders were placed with the company of the respondent-accused for supply of different types of bearings of FAG and other make on various dates, and that the respondent-accused supplied substandard bearings against the orders of the Steel Plant. One A.Ghosh, Manager, Technical Services of FAG precision bearings India Limited, who inspected the seven types of bearings supplied against the quotation informed that none of the bearings supplied by the respondent firm were of genuine FAG make but were of spurious and substandard quality. Hence the mater was ordered for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation-petitioner herein. The C.B.I. after investigation into the crime was of the opinion that the respondent- accused with dishonest intention to cheat the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant supplied spurious and substandard bearings in place of genuine FAG bearings and thereby caused wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.5,01,820/- to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant and thus laid the charge sheet for the offence under Section 420 IPC. The charge sheet was taken on file by the Magistrate in C.C.No.302 of 1998. Later the respondent-accused filed Crl.M.P.No.864 of 1999 in the said C.C. to discharge him from the charge, but the same was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 7.12.1999. On revision being filed by the respondent-accused, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the revision mainly on the ground that the transaction in question between the Steel Plant authorities and the respondent-accused who manufactured the bearings is only civil in nature and the civil rights and liabilities between the Steel Plant authorities and the respondent-accused will be decided by the arbitrator alone and admittedly the proceedings are also going before the arbitrator. It was further observed that there is no prima facie material to show that the case of the respondent-accused is within the four corners of provisions of Section 420 IPC and that to prove the charge under Section 420 IPC, the transaction has to be proved that at the time of receiving money itself there should be a dishonest intention on the part of the person who makes other person to part with his money, and that there is a long rope of business between the steel plant authorities and the respondent-accused in supplying the bearings as ordered, as per the indent on record, and accordingly, the revisional Court allowed the revision holding that the respondent-accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 IPC. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. There is an identical case in Crl.P.No.3676 of 2000,which arose from the same Court and against the order of even date. That case was also with regard to supply of FAG bearings to the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant by another accused-firm and that the application filed by the said firm to discharge from the charge was dismissed by the Magistrate but the revision was allowed in Crl.R.P.No.73 of 1999. This Court by order, dated 11.09.2002 set aside the order of the revisional Court and restored the order passed by the Magistrate. It is now fairly well settled that mere pendency of civil suit/arbitration proceedings between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings or discharging the accused from the charges. Quashing the complaint or discharging the accused on the ground that the complaint allegations disclose a commercial or money transaction is not at all justified. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 27.4.2000 is set aside. The III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam is directed to dispose of C.C.No.302 of 1998 at an early date uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the revisional Court or by this Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. _________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Tsr.