LML LIMITED Vs. KAILASH NARAIN RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING indulgence of this court under inherent jurisdiction, the petitioners have come up challenging the validity of the order dated 15 th February, 2010 passed in Criminal Revision No.19/08 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Datia. By the said order, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision of the petitioners and uphold the order dated 9 th January 2007 of the learned trial Magistrate passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. upon the complaint of respondent No.1. It is thus requested to set aside both the impugned orders dated 15 th February 2010 and 9 th January 2007 passed by the two courts for issuing the process against the petitioners on the complaint and also to quash the complaint of the respondent No.1 registered by the learned trial Magistrate.

(2.) THE facts as emerged out of the record of the courts below and the complaint of the respondent No.1 and as per the averments contained in the petition are the petitioner LML Limited is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its own Registered Head Office at C-3 Panki Industrial Estate Kanpur U.P. The petitioner No.1-company was engaged in manufacture of two wheeler scooters and of its components and spare parts from its factory situated at C-6 to C-10 at Panki Industrial Estate Kanpur U.P. For smooth functioning, the company had appointed dealers and sub-dealers for sale of its vehicles as well as parts thereof in various cities in India on the agreed terms and period. Under that policy, the petitioner had appointed the complainant/respondent No.1 as a dealer in the name and style of "M/s Rai Motors at Datia " for sales, service and spares of LML range of two wheelers. In compliance to the said agreement executed between the company and the dealer, the appointed dealer/complainant was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rs. Fifty Thousand) towards security deposit in the form of a demand draft in favour of LML Limited payable at Kanpur, which shall carry interest @ 12% per annum. This agreement came into force on and with effect from 1/4/09 and the term of the same was for a period of three years commencing from the effective date. As per the duties and obligations assigned in the agreement, the dealer was required from time to time to buy from the company in wholesale such number of scooters as may be offered to it by the company at such prices specified by the Company by making arrangements for payment for the said scooters as per the policy and procedure of the petitioner No.1-company. It is alleged that during the period of trade fair held at Gwalior, on the demand of the complainant, the requisite number of two wheeler vehicles were not supplied to the complainant in consequence of which, the respondent No.1 was compelled to purchase the vehicles from other authorized dealer at Gwalior for making available vehicles to the costumers. The response of the officials on phone was not healthy and satisfactory. Accordingly, a complaint was filed against the petitioner No.1-company and its officers on which the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 denied that the transaction in question is purely of civil nature and this question can be ascertained after investigation. It is submitted that the learned trial Magistrate did not commit any error in taking cognizance upon the complaint after going through the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and the documents filed for taking cognizance under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the company and its officers/employees. As regards protection under Section 22(1) SICA, same is not available for criminal acts of the company or its directors/officers/employees. It is submitted that the powers of inherent jurisdiction vested in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may be exercised by the High court which is an exceptional provision. It is submitted that in a given case, the contentions raised by the petitioners can not be considered and the petitioners may raise their grievance during the proceedings of trial. Hence, it is stated that quashing of criminal proceedings is not proper especially when prima facie case is made out against the accused. The counsel for respondent No.1 also contended that in the light of the order dated 18 th January 2008 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1260/2007 and looking to the entire facts and circumstances and the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the impugned orders because the petitioners have an alternative remedy available and they may contest the criminal proceedings in the trial court. Apart from the above, it is also submitted that the order dated 18 th January, 2008 is binding on the parties and the subsequent petition seeking same relief is not maintainable being hit by the principles of res judicata as the objections raised in the case at hand were already considered at earlier point of time by this court. To support his contention, a series of judgments decided by Apex Court and High Court were relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant.