JAIRAJ SHETTY Vs. THAPAR WATER BASE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 1613 of 1992 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, against the petitioner. The respondent has given a complaint against this petitioner for the offences under Secs. 420, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. He granted a contract work to the petitioner herein at Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, for the execution work of prawn aquaculture project. He has stated in the complaint that as amounts had to be disbursed to this petitioner for the execution of the work, he obtained bank guarantees from the petitioner, that the petitioner furnished bank guarantees drawn on UCO Bank, Mangalore, on the strength of which, he disbursed Rs.42,30,000 that subsequently as he found that the petitioner did not complete the work in time, resulting in huge loss, he terminated the contract and when letters were sent to UCO Bank for payment of the guaranteed amount, UCO Bank informed that no guarantee was given by them and then only he came to know that the bank guarantees given by the petitioner were forged documents to deceive him. On the basis of these allegations, the complaint is taken on file. The petitioner filed O.P.No. 118 of 1991 for certain reliefs under the Arbitration Act invoking the arbitration clause in the agreement whereas the respondent filed O.P.No. 6 of 1992 under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act alleging that the contract is vitiated by fraud and therefore the clauses therein could not be invoked.

(2.) WHILE disposing of O.P.No. 6 of 1992, this Court observed that all questions raised by the parties including the alleged fraud and misrepresentation while furnishing the bank guarantee, shall be decided by the arbitrator. Taking refuge under this clause, the petitioner has come forward with this petition to quash the proceedings viz., C.C. No. 1613 of 1992 as this Court has given direction to decide the alleged fraud and misrepresentation by the arbitrator.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent complainant contended that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is a statutory remedy to try the petitioner for the commission of the offence, that this right of the respondent cannot be taken away by any court and therefore the proceedings cannot be quashed and this petition is not maintainable.