LADI VYAKUNTAM Vs. GUMUDI CHITTIBABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding in respect of which cognizance has been taken by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Parlakhemundi in ICC Case No. 17 of 1988 Under Section 199 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Petitioner No. 1 and the opp. party are the partners of 'Jyoti Rice and Flour Mill'. Since they had dispute relating to their partnership business, the matter was referred to a body of Arbitrators consisting of 4 persons, two having been nominated by each party. There was also an umpire appointed by the parties. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Arbitrators appointed by the opp. party and petitioner No. 4 is the Arbitrator appointed by petitioner No. 1. The other Arbitrator is not a party to the case as no proceeding has been initiated against him.

(2.) IN the complaint petition filed by the opp. party, it was alleged that the preset petitioners 2, 3 and 4 in order to injure the complainant, knowing fully well that it was false and having not believed it to be true, procured the assistance of accused R. Satyanarayan and created a document antedating the same to 22 -11 -1987 which was styled as a majority award. The document was scribed by the said R. Satyanarayan and signed by the present petitioner Nos. 2. 3 and 4. Under the award, the opp. party was required to pay a sum of Rs. 63,161.45 paise to the complaint petition are not very much material for disposal of this case.

(3.) MR . C. A. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following points : (1) On the face of it, the allegations made in the complaint petition does not make out a case Under Section 199, IPC. (2) The opp, party has filed a civil suit in the Court of the Sub - ordinate Judge, Parlakhemundi for declaration that the said award dated 22 -11 -1987 is not binding on him as the award has been antedated and is the out -come of collusion amongst the present petitioners and there is further prayer in the suit for injunction against the Arbitrators not to release the gold in favour of the present petitioner No. 1 in terms of the Arbitration agreement. This disputeeing of a civil nature, it will be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow the present criminal proceeding to continue when the relief claimed by the opp. party is subjudice in the Civil Court. (3) Besides, as per Section 195(b)(i) of the Cr. P. C. a proceeding Under Section 199, IPC can be initiated by a Court following the procedure Under Section 140 of Cr. P. C. and is not maintainable at the instance of a private party. Mr. S. S. Rao, learned counsel for the opp. party, however, contends that in rare case, the High Court should exercise its power to quash an order taking cognizance of an offence and no detailed scanning of evidence is called upon in law at this stage to find out if the cognizance was rightly taken. Besides a proceeding Under Section 199 IPC cannot be initiated at the instance of a private person, is not a supportable proposition in law. He further contends that since civil proceeding and criminal proceeding can be simultaneously continued in respect of the same allegation, there is no reason why this criminal proceeding which is initiated against the petitioners be quashed.