JITENDRA KUMAR BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this petition seek to quash the proceeding in C.T. Case No.1460 of 2021 arising out of INFOCITY P.S. Case No.053 dtd. 8/3/2021 pending before the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar under Ss. 341/294/420/506/34 of .

(2.) On perusal of the FIR on record, the facts are such that Shankar Kumar Jha, CEO, Omnitude Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter 'Opp. Party No. 5') purchased a Piling Rig Machine after taking loan from SREI Finance Company (hereinafter 'financer'). Jitendra Kumar Behera, Owner, Trayesh Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter 'Petitioner-Company') leased the aforementioned machine from Omnitude Services for 48 months at a monthly rent of Rs.12,98,000.00 for the first 12 months and rent of Rs.8,26,000.00 per month for the remaining 36 months. The petitioner-company also paid Omnitude Services Rs.20,00,000.00 as a security deposit. The petitioner-Company defaulted his monthly payments in March 2020 after paying two instalments. Consequentially, Opposite Party No.5 terminated the lease agreement and intimated the same to the petitioner. On 4/3/2021, Opposite Party No.5 tried to recover the aforementioned property but the petitioner did not let them take possession of the same.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners refuted the version as presented by the Opposite Party No. 5. He submitted that the financer wanted to recover the leased property from the petitioners because the Opposite Party No. 5 failed to pay the instalments of Finance Company in the first place. He also highlighted Clause 19.8 of the lease agreement wherein it was agreed that in case the Lessor fails to make EMI payments to the financer, the lessee can make direct payment to the financer. Accordingly, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.21,02,000.00 directly to the financer on behalf of Opposite Party No.5. Moreover, the lease agreement is self-contained and provides remedy for breach of contract. He, therefore, contended that the matter in question is purely civil/contractual and devoid of any ingredients of criminal nature. Hence, the impugned FIR and consequential proceedings may be quashed as it is clear abuse of the process of law.