MRIDUL KUMAR SAIKIA Vs. JIBAN SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the help of this application, made under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner, who is an accused in CR Case No. 2072 of 2004, has sought for setting aside and quashing not only the complaint, which has given rise to the case aforementioned, but also the order, whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, has taken cognizance of offences, under Sections 420/ 406/ 427 IPC, and directed issuance of process accordingly against the accused-petitioner. The case of the complainant, may, in brief, be described thus: The accused is supplier of LPG cylinder and the proprietor of M/S NK Gases, having office at Club Road, Jorhat. In the year 1994, the accused came in contact with the complainant through the witness No. 1 and expressed his desire to give dealership of LPG cylinders in the areas of Gauripur, Alomganj, Balojan, Kachok-hana, Purnia, Rupshi, etc, in the district of Dhubri. In course of time, an agreement was reached, on 10.09.1994, between the complainant and the accused appointing the complainant as a dealer of LPG cylinders. In terms of the agreement, so arrived at, accused took Rs. 30,000/- as security deposit on 10.09.1994 and Rs. 35,250/- as value of 30 numbers of empty cylinders subject to the condition that the money, so received, shall be refunded to the complainant within a year of the date of determination or cancellation or surrender of the dealership. Thereafter, the complainant, in order to obtain refilled cylinders, sent, on 10.10.1996, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- in favour of the accused by demand draft. Since 10.10.1996, the accused has not sent refilled cylinder against the said sum of Rs. 4,000/- despite requisition slip submitted, in this regard, to the accused. The failure of the accused to supply the cylinder, as mentioned hereinbefore, adversely affected the complainant's relationship with his customers. On stopping of refilling of the cylinders by the accused, in violation of the agreement, which had been arrived at by the parties concerned, on 10.09.1994, the complainant sent pleader's notices, dated 24.12.1999 and 14.07.2004, to the accused demanding refund of his money, but the accused never repaid the amount on one pretext or another, The accused has, thus, cheated the complainant, he has also committed criminal breach of trust and has made the complainant suffer loss.

(2.) Having taken cognizance of offences, as mentioned hereinabove, the learned Court below has directed issuance of process against the accused-petitioner, which has been, as mentioned above, put to challenge by way of this application made under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) While considering the present application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., it needs to be noted that the law, with regard to quashing of criminal complaint, is no longer res integra. A catena of judicial decisions has settled the position of law on this aspect of the matter. I may refer to the case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, 1960 AIR(SC) 866 wherein the question, which arose for consideration, was whether a first information report can be quashed under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held, on the facts before it, that no case for quashing of the proceeding was made out Gajendragadkar, J, speaking for the Court, observed that though, ordinarily, criminal proceedings, instituted against an accused, must be tried under the provisions of the Code, there are some categories of cases, where the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can and should be exercised for quashing the proceedings. One such category, according to the Court, in R.P. Kapur , consists of cases, where the allegations in the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases, no question of appreciating evidence arises and it is a matter merely of looking at the FIR or the complaint in order to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or not. In such cases, said the Court, it would be legitimate for the High Court to hold that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the process of the criminal Court to be issued against the accused. From the case of R.P. Kapoor , it becomes abundantly clear that when a look into the contents of a complaint shows that the contents of the complaint, even if taken at their face value and accepted to be true in their entirety, do not disclose commission of offence, the complaint shall be quashed. Similarly, where an FIR does not disclose commission of an offence, the FIR has got to be quashed.