G MOHANAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in PC No.65/2014 on the file of the JMFC, Koppal, in referring the matter to the Koppal Rural Police for investigation and consequently, registration of FIR in Crime No.45/14 by the said police.

(2.) THE main contention and the allegations made in the petition as argued by the learned Counsel are that the complainant by name Chandrashekar Reddy S/o Subbireddy, who filed a complaint on behalf of K.P.R. Fertilizerss Factory Ltd., against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not a criminal complaint because of the simple reason that a civil dispute between the parties and commercial transaction between the parties had been converted into a criminal offences and a false complaint came to be lodged. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is only a business transaction between the parties, that is to say the petitioner are the purchasers of Sulphuric Acid from the complainant's company and it is alleged that they have to pay a due amount of Rs.8,53,777/ - which was the amount for purchase of Sulphuric Acid from the complainant's company for the period from June 2012 to August 2012. There are some exchange of notices between the parties. In none of the notices, it is mentioned that the petitioners have committed any act of criminality and they are criminally liable before any criminal Court. It is contended by the learned Counsel that even translating the entire averments in the complaint into evidence, it does not disclose any offence under any of the penal provisions for the time being in force. On overall reading of the complaint, it should broadly satisfy that some offences have been committed by the petitioners. In the absence of such elucidation of factual aspects by making allegations of any offence against the petitioners neither the Court can take cognizance of such offences nor it can refer the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel also drawn my attention to the previous exchange of notices between the parties and also the earlier complaint being filed before the police by the complainant in order to extract the money from the petitioners. He further contended before this Court that the cause of action mentioned in the complaint also discloses that the transaction was taken place in the year 2012, but, a complaint was filed in the year 2014. It is the specific contention in the complaint that after denial of the transaction and refusal to pay the due amount by the petitioners, the complaint came to be filed. That is the cause of action for the complaint. Therefore, he contends that a transaction between the parties purely civil in nature and it did not attract any penal provisions. Therefore, he requests the Court to quash the entire proceedings as sought for in the petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that in the complaint, it is specifically mentioned what are the offences that have been committed by the petitioners herein and also at the prayer column in the complaint, specifically mentioned the provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860, in which the petitioners have committed the offences. The allegations made in the complaint need not be an encyclopedia at that stage. Therefore, for the purpose of referring the complaint, a semblance of allegations are sufficient and only during the course of investigation, the respondent No.2 can produce sufficient materials before the police in order to prove its case. Therefore, he contended that when the investigation is pending, it should not be scuttled down by interfering with the investigation by exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.