MANISH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. The petitioner challenges the summons issued under Section 420 or 406 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore. The challenge to the summons issued by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is two-fold. Firstly, that the Court of the Magistrate at Indore has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no cause of action for entertaining such complaint arose at Indore, and secondly, that the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 does not disclose any offence of the nature punishable under either Section 420 or Section 406 of the IPC under which the summons has been issued.

(2.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner, placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2966 submitted that apart from the bare allegations in the complaint, the documents which are produced along with the complaint nowhere disclose any transaction between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 so as to give rise for any cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Indore to entertain the said complaint. The grievance of the respondent No.2 being in the nature of non-compliance of the obligations by the principal towards its agent, it is purely a civil liability, if at all there could be said to be any liability of the petitioner towards the respondent No.2, but in no case the complaint discloses any fact which could give rise to any offence punishable under Section 406 or Section 420 of the IPC. The complaint, on the face of it, discloses an artificially created cause of action to justify the complaint at the Indore Court and the same is apparent from the documents annexed to the complaint and therefore this is a fit case for quashing the summons issued to the petitioner as well as the complaint filed by the respondent No.2.

(3.) BEARING in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court on the relevant issue, if one peruses the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 in the Court of the Magistrate at Indore, it refers to the allegation that on 11-11-2000 a seminar was arranged on behalf of the petitioner at Aaram Hotel, Gandhi Hall, Indore and an advertisement in that regard was published through the daily newspapers under the caption "Earn Rs.5000.00 to Rs.8000.00 per week. No ceiling, no target. Part-time job." It is the case of the respondent No.2 that pursuant to the said advertisement, she attended the seminar on the relevant day, time and place and she was informed about the scheme which was being promoted by some of the persons named as the accused in the complaint and she was also informed about the benefits which can be derived from the scheme, and accordingly she joined the said scheme, pursuant to which she received certain commission from February, 2001 till June, 2001. She was also issued with a certificate of merit on 25-3-2001 in relation to the services rendered by her for the promoting the business of Free India Concept, stated to have been floated by the petitioner. Her further contention in the complaint is that she had applied for renewal of her services on payment of Rs.3300.00 on 21-11-2001 by demand draft No.574754, issued on the State Bank of India, Indore. It is her further contention that the accused persons from 1 to 5 and 7 and 8 intentionally and by entering into a conspiracy denied the commission amount payable to the complainant and illegally diverted it to the name of the accused No.6. She has sought to rely upon the booklet of Free India Concept, form of Free India Concept, receipt of the amount of Rs.2500.00 deposited by her on 23-11-2000, the identity letter issued to her, the statements of the commission amount received by her, certificate of merit, the record of information obtained through internet, etc., and has further stated in the complaint that the commission amount was paid to the complainant at Indore and the complainant did her agency's business as the agent of the petitioner-company in Indore city.