MAJ GEN HARKISAN Vs. DURGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is a common experience that there is a tendency on the part of the litigants to start circuit civil suits or proceedings by instituting complaints, which should be vigilantly checked by the Criminal Courts and they should not lend aid to such short cuts. The parties should not be allowed to give vent to their anger or express their vengeance by starting proceedings in Criminal Courts when proper remedy is to resort to Civil Courts. Hasty resort to criminal courts to invoke aid against persons inflicting civil injuries should not be encouraged.

(2.) THE perusal of the complaint instituted by the non-applicant No. 1 Shri Durgaprasad Agarwal on behalf of his brother Shri Sham Sundar in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, the averments made in the instant petition and documents annexed with the petition, the instant case appears to be one of such type of short cuts by moving the Criminal Court rather than to redress their grievances in the Civil Court. The facts which prompted the non-applicant Shri Durgaprasad Agarwal to institute the complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, are as follows:- The complainant is the brother of Shri Shamsundar who does the business of exhibiting films at Tumsar in the name and style as "balaram Video Cinema". A video projector was purchased from the company "fusebase Eltoro Limited" of which the petitioner No. 1 (accused No. 1) is the Chief Executive. It is alleged that at the time of purchase of the machine, the literature of the machine along with the photographs were sent to the complainant. An assurance was extended by the accused Nos. 9 and 10 to the complainant. The complainant decided to purchase the said machine. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, took no cognizance against the accused Nos. 9 and 10 and therefore, no process was issued against those persons. Hence they are not before me. It is further alleged that at the time of purchase, the accused Nos. 1, 9 and 10 also assured the complainant that this new Hotline Machine will be brought to Tumsar and will be installed in the cinema hall constructed by the complainant. Besides, the warranty period of one year was assured and during warranty period if there occurs any fault, repairs will be carried out as per the agreement. If the machine is not working satisfactorily the same would be replaced without charging anything for the same. According to the complainant, the machine was not working properly and, therefore, letters were issued to the accused to send their Engineers. However, it is contended that they demanded Rupees 10,000/- from the complainant for future repairs even during the period of guarantee. It is further submitted in the complaint that though assurance was extended to supply new working machine, the accused supplied an old one. On these averments, the complainant alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable u/ Ss. 415, 416, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned C. J. M. , Bhandara, called report of the Police u/ S. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code and after receiving the report from the Police, ordered to issue process u/ Ss. 415, 416 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 i. e. the present petitioners before me, vide order dated 10-1-1991.