IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.20873 of 2000 1. M/S KALYANPUR CEMENT LIMITED THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SWAMINATH VERMA, SON OF BHAGWAT PRASAD, ONE OF THE AUTHORISED ATTORNEY OF M/s KALYANPUR CEMENT, MAURYA CENTRE, FRASER ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA. 2. RAJIV MISHRA, SON OF LATE SATISH CHANDRA MISHRA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BHIKHAMPUR, P.S. ISHACHAK, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR, SENIOR EXECUTIVE SALES, KALYANPUR CEMENT LIMITED, FRASER ROAD, PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR (ACCOUNTS), D.R.D.A., DISTRICT NALANDA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** For the petitioners :- Mr. Faiz Ahmad, Advocate Mr. Amit Prakash, Advocate For Opp. Party (State) :- Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. 6 9.12.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report as far as it relates to the petitioners namely M/s Kalyanpur Cement Limited and its employees. A case was instituted numbered as Bihar Sharif P.S. Case No. 184 of 2000 on 20.5.2000 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were to supply 39,770 bags of cement to the informant. Instead of supplying the aforesaid number of bags, the company accused supplied only 37,991 bags of cement whereas 1780 bags of cement fell in shortage of the agreement. A counter affidavit has been filed 2 in this case in which it has been stated at paragraph 8: “That in reply to the statements made in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the quashing application, it is stated that the agreement was signed for supply of cement at the rate of Rs. 136/- per bag cement between the period of August, 1998 to August, 1999 and during the period of agreement a sum of Rs. 54,08,720/- was paid as an advance to the petitioner of the quashing petition for supply of 39,770 bags of cement, but the petitioner supplied only 37,991 bags of cement upto September, 1999 and after expiry of date of agreement the petitioner supplied 1779 bags of cement and after registration of F.I.R. the petitioner supplied 1779 bags of cement. It is submitted that 1779 bags of cement was not supplied within the stipulated period inspite of the payment of price and thus the opposite party is entitled to interest. In view of the admission the petitioner is liable to pay the interest over the amount as the State Government has been deprived of the supply of cement in time.” Two facts emerge on reading of the First Information Report and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant. The glaring fact which appeals to this Court is that the allegations reveal that there was no intention of the petitioners company to dishonestly misappropriate or cheat the informant inasmuch as the bags of cement have subsequently been supplied to the informant. 3 There is a dispute with respect to the interest that ought to be paid for violation of the agreement to supply cement within the time fixed on behalf of both the parties. The question of payment of interest cannot be a subject matter of a criminal proceeding. The complainant would have the liberty to move the appropriate forum for payment of interest in lieu of late supply or loss that may have been caused due to late supply of the bags of cement. In view of the fact that no offence is made out under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, no purpose would be served in allowing this criminal prosecution to continue against the petitioners. In the result, I quash the First Information Report in Bihar Sharif P.S. Case No. 184 of 2000 as far as it concerns the petitioners. This quashing application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)