MINTU SINGHA ROY Vs. TENZING DOLKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Case arises out of General Register Case No. 94 of 2008, under Section 409/420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), arising out of Gangtok Sadar Police Station Case No. 65(5)07 dated 11th May, 2007, pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim at Gangtok, wherein the petitioner has been required to appear and answer on the charges as herein stated.

(2.) MR . Subrata Kumar Roy Karmakar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that a bare reading of the First Information Report read with the Charge-Sheet filed by the police, do not disclose any offence under Section 409 and Section 420, IPC, and, therefore, the proceedings pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate requires to be quashed. In support of his submission, a large number of decisions have been cited, amongst which is the decision in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others (2009) 1 SCC 516: 2009 AIR SCW 1836 where the principle of law under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 1973 as enunciated in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 Cri LJ 527 has been re- emphasised. He further submits that from the contents of the FIR it is quite obvious that the matter relates to a contractual dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1, and, therefore, is purely civil in nature.

(3.) MR . Karma Thinlay Namgyal, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State - Respondent No. 2, has placed before this Court the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and others (2006) 6 SCC 736: AIR 2006 SC 2780 to emphasise on the point that a criminal proceeding can be initiated even if a dispute is essentially of a civil character.