CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14658 OF 2000 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- BIRENDRA TIWARI, Son of Brij Raj Tiwari, Proprietor of Patna Transport Organisation, R.K. Bhattacharya Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, at present at Budha Marg ( Near Pal Hotel), Town and District-Patna-800001 ------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shri S.Sinha, Area Sales Manager, Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd., Abhishek Plaza, Exhibition Road,Patna --- Opp.Parties. ---------- For the petitioner: Smt. Anjana Mishra, and Jaishankar Pathak, Advocates For the State: Sri Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2: S/ Sri Laxmi Narain Das, Ranjit Sharan, Advocates. --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, who was proprietor of Patna Transport Organisation, has approached this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 10.8.1999 passed by Sri B.K.Tiwari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 505 ( C) of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 407 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was registered as Complaint Case No.505(C) of 1998 for the offences under Sections 407, 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code 2 against the petitioner and his two Managers. The petitioner was arrayed as accused no.1 in the complaint case. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant had booked consignment at Calcutta office of the accused for delivery of the same at Patna and Nawadah. The detail of goods with invoice has been mentioned in paragraph-2 of the complaint petition, which indicates that the total value of consignment was Rs.6, 40,098.47. It has been alleged in the complaint case that the accused persons were required to release the consignment after production of the transport receipt /lorry receipt. However, it was alleged that the accused transporter had delivered the goods or consignments to somewhere else without production of transport receipt and accordingly, it has been alleged that the transporter has committed offence of criminal breach of trust. It has been alleged that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 407, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After the complaint was filed and enquiry was completed, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order i.e. order dated 10.8.1999 has taken cognizance of offences under Section 407 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 27.11.2000, while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2, this Court directed that in the meantime, further proceeding in the court below as against the petitioner shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 13.7.2001, the case was admitted for hearing and it was directed that till further order is passed, interim order dated 27.11.2000 shall continue. The order of stay is still continuing. 3 4. Smt. Anjana Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order, at the very outset has argued that the dispute in between the petitioner and the complainant was purely civil in nature and for such dispute criminal court may not be allowed to proceed with the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the consignment was released in favour of one Quraban Material Store as per instruction of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to number of documents, which have been annexed with the present petition. It has further been submitted that the said Quraban Material Store, which had received the consignment, had also informed the complainant that after receipt of the transport receipt the said Quraban Material Store will produce the same and, as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner had committed criminal breach of truest with the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in the complaint petition itself, the complainant had asserted that transaction had taken place between 28.2.1994 and 23.5.1994 and to the reasons best known to the complainant, the complainant sat over the matter for considerable long period and at a belated stage i.e. in the year 1998 the present complaint petition was filed. 5. In support of stand that it was a case of purely civil dispute, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to number of Judgments , particularly a Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009)8 SCC 751( Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. ). She has specifically referred to paragraph 8 of the said Judgment, which is as follows: 4 “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a case law, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 (Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh) as well as a Judgment of this Court reported in 2001(1) PLJR 135 (G.K.Agrawal Vs. The State of Bihar). 6. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been submitted that since the allegation made in the complaint petition discloses a dispute, which is purely a civil dispute, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner may be set aside. Accordingly, it has been prayed to set aside the impugned order of cognizance. 7. Sri L.N.Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the complaint petition itself categorically indicates that the petitioner was a transporter and without production of transport receipt, the entire amount of consignment was misappropriated by accused persons in connivance with some other accused persons. It has further been submitted that documents, which 5 have been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner may not be looked into at this stage that too while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, It has been submitted that those documents can well be looked into by the court below during the trial and not at this initial stage of cognizance. It has further been submitted that the complainant was initially trying to persuade the accused persons to settle the dispute by either making payment of entire consignment amount or by returning the consignment but since the accused persons sat over the matter for a long time, the complainant was left with no option but to initiate the present complaint. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 has been prayed to reject the present petition. 8. Sri Hirday Pd. Singh, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has supported the stand taken by Sri L.N.Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party No.2. 9. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record, particularly the complaint petition, which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the present petition, and the impugned order. From the complaint petition, the Court is satisfied that it categorically discloses commission of offences and the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has committed no error. So far as documents, which have been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that all those documents, which have been brought on record without proving them through process of law, may not be looked into by this Court, 6 While hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those documents can well be examined by the concerned court at the appropriate stage. At the initial stage of cognizance, it would be appropriate for this Court to restrain itself to interfere with such disputed question of fact. Time without number it has been reiterated that at the initial or interlocutory stage of criminal proceeding, this Court may refrain from examining the evidence meticulously or conducting mini trial. So far as the case laws , which have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner , are concerned, the Court is of the view that there is no dispute and if the allegation discloses a dispute of purely civil in nature , in that view of the matter, the criminal court may not be allowed to proceed but in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that it is not a purely civil dispute, but contents of the complaint petition discloses specific case of commission of offence under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out an exceptional case warranting exercise of inherent in his favour. 10. Accordingly, the petition fails and same is hereby rejected. 11. In view of rejection of the present petition, interim order of stay dated 27.11.2000 stands automatically vacated. 12. Keeping in view the fact that the matter remained pending before this Court for a long period, it is desirable to direct the court below to proceed with the case expeditiously, so that the case may come to its logical end without any further delay. 7 13. With the above observation and directed, the petition stands rejected. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 5th October,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)