Criminal Writ Petition No.584 of 2008

19th December, 2012

Petitioner Counsel: Mr R.N. DHORDE, Sr. Adv. with Mr V.R. DHORDE, Mr S.S. PANALE
Respondent Counsel: Mrs V.A. SHINDE, Mr H.F. PAWAR,

JUDGMENT

A. H. JOSHI, J. :- In both these petitions, the challenge is common.

2. The prayer is for quashing first information report in C.R. No.98 of 2008, registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station, Latur, for offences punishable under sections 420, 406 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and charge-sheet filed in furtherance thereto.

3. Both these petitions were heard at length.

4. The petitions had remained pending for admission hearing for a considerable period. Hence, by consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard.

5. Though the petitions, as originally filed, consisted of challenge to the charge-sheet, due to the advice rendered to them, the petitioners they have amended the petitions and incorporated challenge to the first information report. In view of this development, the petitions were listed before us.

6. As we have seen, the first information report consists of disclosure that it is registered under sections 420, 406 and 434 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. The text of the first information report which is relied upon by the complainant, which version is reiterated reads as follows :-

".......vkt jksth vkEgh iks- Bk.ks veaynkj Eg.kwu M;qVhr gtj vlrkauk ;krhy fQ;kZnh iks-LVs- ;sowu ys[kh fQ;kZn fnyh R;kpk etdqj [kkyhyizek.ks %& ojhy fo"k;kuqlkj eh vtZnkj fguk vkWbZy vWUM dsfedYl fy- ,e- vk;- Mh- Lkh- ykrwj ;sFks QWDVjh eWustj Eg.kwu dke djhr vkgs- vkeP;k QWDVjhe/;s--- rsy b- oLRqps mRiknu gksrs- lnjhy >kysys mRiknu nykyk ekQZr fdaok ljG ekx.kh dsysY;k daiU;kuk fodzh dsyh tkrs- lnjpk fodzhpk O;olk; gk ykrwj ;sFkhy fguk vk+WbZYl vWUM dsfedYl fy- ;k daiuhP;k dk;kZy;krp gksrks- fnukad 07@08@07 fn- 25@09@07 fn- 08@10@07 ;k fno'kh es- ik;ksfuvj fQMl vWUM iksYVªh izksMDVl ¼izk½ fy- iksxywj rh:iwj rkyqdk ftYgk dksbZerwj fy- rkfeGukMw jkT; ;k daiuhps ¼1½ Jh fuyk d".ku psvjeu 1½ Jh j?kqirh dk;Zdkjh Lakpkyd 3½ Jh- fcEeFkku dk;Zdkjh lapkyd 4½ lapkyd Jh larks"kth psvjeu fuyd'"k.ku ;kapk eqyxk vkgs- 5½ Jh- th- uVjktu tujy eWustj--- ;kauh R;kps nyky o lk{khnkj ghu fctusl lksjls iw-izk-iks- dksbZerwj ;kaP;k ekQZr ojhy rkjs[kauk i'kq[kkn;klkBh ekx.kh uksan dsyh o R;k ekx.kh izek.ks osGksosGh fn- 27@8@07 rs 23@10@07 i;Zr ,dq.k osGk 78]01]047@& ¼v{kjh vB;kgRrj yk[k ,d gtkj lRrspkGhl :i;s½ R;kaP;k vkWMZj dUQjes'ku o djkjkP;k vVh izek.ks iqjoBk dj.;kr vkyk- ;k iqjoB;kP;k fcykph ;s.ks vlysyh jDde djkjkr fnysY;k eqnrhizek.ks fnukad 7@8@07 P;k djkjkps eky feGkysiklwu 35 fnolkar fnukad 25@01@07 P;k djkjkps eky feGkysiklqu 35 fnolkar fnukad 08@10@07 P;k djkjkps eky feGkY;kiklwu 60 fnolkr ns; gksrs- R;k vuq"kaxkus ekÖ;k daiuhus R;koj fo'okl Bsowu R;kizek.ks Vªd o jsYosus lnjpk eky ikBfoysyk vkgs- R;kP;k VªkUliksVkZP;k ikoR;k fQ;kZnhlkscr tksMY;k vkgsr o R;k izek.ks R;kauh lnjpk eky lksMowu ?ksowu rkC;kr ?ksryk vkgs- lnj ekykP;k ,dq.k jDdesiSdh :- 61]23]039-43 ¼:i;s ,dl"V yk[k rsohl gtkj ,dks.kpkGhl :i;s +=spkGhl iSls QDr½ ,sok o ekÖ;k daiuhpk vU;k;kus fo'okl?kkr dsyk vkgs- ekÖ;k daiuhus iqjfoysyk eky vkiY;k rkC;kr ?ksowu iks;kfuvj daiuhsps ojhy 1 rs 5 inkf/kdk&;kauh laxuer d:u Lor%P;k Qk;n;klkBh d:u vU;k;kus fo'okl ?kkr d:u ns; jDde u nsowu ek>h o ekÖ;k daiuhph Qlo.kwd dsyh vkgs-

8. The portion contained in first information report which, according to the petitioners describes commission of offence, is underlined for convenience, which is translated as follows :-

"...... ... The goods were supplied as per confirmed order and terms of agreement. The amount of bill due towards this supply, as per the time limit incorporated in the agreement dated 25.1.2007 and dated 7.8.2007 was payable within 35 days from the date of receipt of the goods. As per subsequent agreement dated 8.10.2007 the amount due was payable within 60 days from the date of receipt of the goods. My company believed in the promise and accordingly dispatched the goods through truck and railway. The transport receipts thereof are annexed to the complaint. Accordingly, they got released the goods and took them in their possession. Out of the total amount of the said goods, an amount of Rs.61,23,039=43 was due and payable from the concerned company as on 20.10.2007. The said company has committed breach of trust of mine and my company. The abovenamed 1 to 5 office bearers of Pioneer company, in furtherance of their common intention, took the possession of the goods supplied by my company and by not paying the due amount they have cheated me and my company, for their own benefit."

(Portion translated from paper-book page Nos.14 & 15)

9. After investigation, the charge-sheet is filed. Text of the charge-sheet reiterates the version contained in the first information report. Perusal of statements of witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure show that those also contain a grievance which is concurrent and in echo, namely :-

"that "the money payable for the goods sold is not made over in compliance with the promise between 35 and 60 days, respectively."

10. We have noticed that even if each and every word and statement contained in the first information report as well as charge-sheet and statements of the witnesses as recorded by the Investigating Officer are accepted to be true without further evidence, and on that basis the offence of breach of trust is registered, yet cheating, etc. is not disclosed.

11. As we have noticed, the grievance of the petitioners falls squarely within the description of the term "breach of promise to make the payment" in terms of the stipulations i.e. breach of contract and nothing beyond that.

12. There is no element of breach of trust involved, seen from any angle. Therefore, continuation of trial any further, would be sheerly abuse of process of law, apart from the fact that the accused persons will be vexed at law, which exercise is certainly avoidable.

13. We are, therefore, satisfied that present is a fit case where first information report as well as charge-sheet, deserve to be quashed.

14. We, therefore, make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (BB) in Criminal Writ Petition No.584 of 2008 and prayer clause (B-1) in Criminal Writ Petition No.159 of 2009.

Ordered accordingly.