SATISH THAPAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the FIR No.132 dated 29.7.1996 under Sections 406 IPC registered with Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana.

(2.) The petitioners were the Directors of M/s Thapar Foods Limited having resigned from such directorship on 3.4.1996. It has been averred that the respondent No.2 filed a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana on 18.7.1996 in which it was alleged that Thapar Foods Limited had embezzled 3034 MT of paddy stocks worth Rs.1,13,77,500/-. Accordingly, FIR No.132 was registered under the provisions of Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Focal Point, Ludhiana on 29.7.1996. The respondent No.2 is alleged to have initiated arbitration proceedings as per the agreement dated 11.10.1994 existing between the parties. The respondent No.2 thereafter filed another FIR bearing No.86 dated 12.7.1995 at Police Station, Sahnewal. The said FIR was quashed by this Court vide order dated 21.1.2000. An amount of Rs.1,61,82,728/- was deposited by the petitioners. Subsequently another FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 bearing No.132 dated 29.7.1996 with Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana. After the investigation was completed the challan was filed on 25.11.1999 and the Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges on 1.2.2002. The petitioners filed a revision against the said orders which was dismissed on 4.10.2002. This has necessitated the present petition.

(3.) It has been contended by Mr. Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners that the present FIR is totally an abuse of the process of law. The ingredients of Section 406 IPC were not attracted at all. It was purely a case of civil liability and the present FIR was lodged because the petitioners in the previous FIR bearing No.86 dated 12.7.1995 had made a payment of more than Rs.1,61,00,000/- to respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 having tasted blood was now trying to force the petitioners into making more payment by lodging the present FIR. In any case there is nothing due to respondent No.2.