GOVIND PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners seeks to quash the order passed on 3. 03.2020 by the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2020 taking cognizance of offences under Ss. 420/ 468/ 406/ 294/ 506/ 323/ 34 of IPC.

(2.) An overview of the facts involved in this case are, the petitioners are the accused persons in the complaint instituted by OPNo.2 in 1.C.C. Case No.14 of 2020 pending in the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road. It is stated in the complaint that OPNo.2 got a contract from Tata Steel Ltd. for civil work at Kalinga Nagar, Duburi, but the petitioner No.1 being the proprietor of Odisha Enterprises expresses his interest to do the aforesaid work and he was accordingly, assigned by OPNo.2 to complete the work on a mutual agreement embodying the terms and conditions therein with ultimate condition of sharing 9% of the profit with the complainant-OPNo.2. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioners left the work without finishing it, but they had kept two cheques vide Nos.419201 and 034141 as a security from OPNo.2-complainant by putting the amount Rs.20,00,000.00 each in the two cheques, but it was agreed while entering into a contract to return the aforesaid two cheques after receiving payment in lieu of the bills and in order to harass the OPNo.2-complainant, the petitioners did not return the cheques despite being repeatedly requested and, accordingly, on 1/11/2019, the OPNo.2-complainant issued legal notice to the petitioners to return the cheques, but instead of returning such cheques, on 6/1/2020 at about 11 AM, the petitioners came to the office of OPNo.2-complainant and demanded outstanding dues by abusing in filthy language and when the OPNo.2-complainant protested, the petitioners pushed and pulled OPNo.2-complainant and threatened him to take away of his life and to institute false case to harass him. It was also alleged in the complaint that due to non-completion of work by the petitioners, Tata Steel Ltd. had blacklisted the complainant-OP No.2 depriving him from getting any work of the Company.

(3.) In the course of hearing of the matter, Mr. B.K. Ragada, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the decision in Criminal Appeal No.463 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.10951 of 2019 decided on 22/3/2022 (Vijay Kumar Ghai and Ors. Vrs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) submits that the dispute between the parties primarily was civil in nature, but OPNo.2 has instituted a complaint by giving it the colour of criminal case and the learned J.M.F.C., Jajpur Road has fallen in error for taking cognizance of offences without analyzing the materials produced by the complainant. Mr. Ragada accordingly prays to quash the impugned order taking cognizance of offences.