RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Reliance Industries Limited (hereafter 'R.I.L.') represented through its State Head Sri Viren K Joshi has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking inherent powers of this Court to quash the impugned order dated 01.11.2011 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh in I.C.C. Case No.69 of 2009 in taking cognizance of offences under sections 420, 384, 427, 471, 467 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against the R.I.L.

(2.) The opposite party-complainant Shyam Sundar Sharma filed a complaint petition in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh alleging therein that he was fraudulently persuaded by Sangramjeet Mohanty and Sarbeswar Mohanty of the R.I.L. to establish a R.I.L. Petrol Pump at Khuntuni. They assured a guaranteed profit margin as per their commission structure. The complainant was persuaded to purchase a land measuring Ac.1.70 dec. at a huge cost through the land brokers engaged by the R.I.L. All steps were taken before the Collector and Executive Engineer (N.H.) by the R.I.L. and its representatives for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' for establishment of a retail outlet at Khuntuni under the name and style of 'M/s. Shyam Filling Station'. The R.I.L. fraudulently induced the complainant to execute a lease deed and a dealership agreement and being deceived, the complainant and the R.I.L. entered into dealership agreement as well as lease deed on 22.08.2005. It is the further case of the complainant that he signed and executed both the deeds and delivered the same to the R.I.L. and its representatives. The R.I.L. induced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) as signing fee and Rs. 23.5 lakhs as security deposit. It is stated that the R.I.L. and its authorized representatives extorted the complainant for causing loss of property to the tune of Rs. 26.5 lakhs. As per the terms of dealership agreement, the R.I.L. was supposed to continue delivering petrol, diesel and allied products to the filling station of the complainant. The R.I.L. fraudulently convinced the complainant that finances to run the outlet would be arranged by them and the filling station shall run at the rate fixed by the Government earning profit for the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that R.I.L. and its officers and agents acted in connivance with the authorities of the State Bank of India and especially the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Athagarh Branch in providing finance to the tune of Rs. 1.19 crores in favour of the complainant as a term loan and cash credit enabling him to complete the construction of the filling station as per the approved layout and design of R.I.L. and for operation of the filling station. On 29.10.2005 the complainant was compelled to sign a tripartite agreement with R.I.L. and State Bank of India on deceitful and fraudulent terms. The R.I.L. and State Bank of India and their representatives at all relevant time fraudulently made the complainant believe that they would act bona fide as per the terms of the documents and shall cooperate for appropriate and proper functioning and operation of the filling station. The tripartite agreement ex facie shows that the R.I.L. was interested in setting up and running the retail outlet and the R.I.L. shall not terminate the dealership and shall not stop supplying the products to the complainant and that the R.I.L. had undertaken to act as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. According to the complainant, the tripartite agreement was extorted by fraudulent representations. It is the further case of the complainant that the complainant operated the outlet for a period of two years as per the instructions and directions of the R.I.L. issued from time to time. The complainant had invested more than Rs. 60 lakhs of his own funds for promotion and continuance of the outlet. During that period, there was inter se correspondence between the R.I.L. and the State Bank of India. Suddenly on 19.04.2008 the R.I.L. suspended supply of petrol and diesel with effect from 01.05.2008 to the outlet of the complainant and till the filing of the complaint petition, they did resume the supply and resorted to flimsy plea of non-support of Government of India. According to the complainant, suspension of supply was a part of criminal conspiracy of the accused to swindle and cheat him of his valuable assets and properties. Immediately on suspension of the outlet with effect from 01.05.2008, the accused Branch Manager of State Bank of India demanded payment of the outstanding loan by its letter dated 31.05.2008 which according to the complainant was issued at the instance of the R.I.L. A further letter was issued by State Bank of India on 26.06.2008 making an offer to the complainant for 'buy bank' to the R.I.L. for regularizing the loan account. According to the complainant, in the entire process, he incurred loss of about rupees one crore. It is the further case of the complainant that he initially filed a complaint petition before the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.2340 of 2008 as the inducement was done in its Cuttack Office but the said Court was pleased to dispose of the complaint and returned the complaint petition to the complainant for re-presentation before the proper Court as per section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by passing an order on 24.12.2008. The complainant then filed a Criminal Revision No.2 of 2009 before the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack challenging the order dated 24.12.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack and the revisional Court after hearing both the sides was also pleased to confirm the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M. vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2009. Accordingly, the complainant filed the complaint petition i.e. I.C.C. Case No.69 of 2009 before the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh.

(3.) After filing of the complaint petition, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and conducted inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C., 1973 during course of which the complainant examined three witnesses. After perusing the complaint petition, the initial statement and the statements of witnesses recorded under section 202 of Cr.P.C., 1973 the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order.