M. S. BANGA Vs. BHISHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 1791/2004 filed by the respondent No. 1 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni.

(2.) ACCORDING to the respondent No. 1 he is an authorized agent of the Company, Hindustan Lever Limited (for short, "HLL") since 1.4.1991. There were smooth business dealings between them till January 1999. From 1.9.1999 the Company HLL introduced a new scheme whereby goods were supplied against demand drafts, pursuant to which he submitted demand drafts in the name of Company HLL to the value of Rs. 9,00,000/- but it did not supply him the goods. The grievance of the respondent No. 1 is that he and Narendra (PW 3) met the petitioners in Mumbai office, who are responsible for maintaining his accounts, and requested them either to return money or supply the goods but to no avail. The respondent No. 1, therefore, filed a criminal complaint on 25.10.2001 against the petitioners and 18 others for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni. Thereafter, statements of respondent No. 1 (PW 1), Ashish (PW 2) and Narendra Kumar (PW 3) were recorded. The Magistrate by order dated 7.12.2004 registered an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one Gupte and issued process for their appearance.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel has argued that even if all the allegations in the complaint were taken as true, they did not constitute an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code; the complaint related to purely contractual dispute of a civil nature in respect of which the respondent No. 1 had already filed a civil suit; the entire allegations made by the respondent No. 1 were against the Company HLL and, therefore, it alone could be prosecuted as petitioners cannot be made vicariously liable under the Indian Penal Code and lastly the Court at Seoni has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no criminal breach of trust has taken place there. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, has defended the registration of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners by the trial Court. He also argued that no ground for exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by this Court to quash the criminal complaint in question is made out.