TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cified trademarks owned by Cadbury Schweppes plc. U.K. or its associate companies. The agreements contained identical clauses with regard to their respective terms and conditions and provided that they shall continue for an initial term of five years and for further successive period of five years, unless terminated by either party by giving to the other not less than 12 calendar months notice in writing to terminate the agreement. On July 29, 1999, Atlantic Industries (a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, USA) purchased about 3500 trademarks in 155 countries from Cadbury Schweppes plc., upon which the bottling agreements between Cadbury Schweppes Beverages India Pvt. Ltd. and Sanjiva Bottling Company were duly assigned to Atlantic Industries and an information regarding the same was given to Sanjiva Bottling Company in writing. On February 14, 2000, Atlantic Industries gave notice in writing to the complainant, Sanjiva Bottling Company that the bottling agreements shall not be renewed after their expiry on February 28, 2001. Sanjiva Bottling Company through its Director, Rajiv Mehta filed a criminal complaint against 11 accused including the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecting the police to investigate the offence as the same was cognizable offence. The police thereafter submitted a report on October 31, 2000 which reads as under : After the entire inquiry it appears that the Cadbury Schweppes Company and Coca Cola Company have violated the terms and conditions of Business Agreement, as a result, the complainant has suffered financial loss. The complainant was kept in darkness and supplied confusing information, consequently, Complainant suffered economic loss. Prima facie a case of business competition and violation of Agreements is made out and the complainant is advised to approach the Civil Court. After consideration of the report the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the police had not submitted the same in accordance with Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and also in the proforma prescribed in the Rules framed by the State Government as the same had been submitted on plain paper. The SHO, PS Govindpura was accordingly directed on November 16, 2000 to submit a report in the prescribed proforma. On January 11, 2001, the Police submitted a report that on the basis of the complaint, Case Crime No.5 of 2001, Case Crime No.13 of 2001 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission of any offence by the appellants and, therefore, the proceedings of the complaint case and also the FIRs lodged against the appellants are liable to be quashed. The learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted that as per the order of the learned Magistrate dated July 27, 2000, the Police had submitted a report that prima facie it was a case of violation of agreement for which the complainant could seek relief from the Civil Court. However, in view of subsequent order passed by the learned Magistrate on November 16, 2000 a case had been registered at the Police Station and the matter was being investigated. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the complainant has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint disclose commission of an offence under Section 420 IPC by the accused persons and a case has been registered at the Police Station and investigation is being carried out. Learned counsel has further submitted that the High Court rightly took the view that the Petitions filed by the appellants for quashing of the proceedings were pre-mature and the said order does not suffer from any error of law. We have given our care ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on the Base Plan to come into effect at the start of such subsequent period and as to the levels of Annual Minimum Aggregate Sales which shall apply during such subsequent period. Thereafter on February 14, 2000 a notice was given jointly by Atlantic Industries, Canada Dry Corporation Limited and Cadbury Schweppes Beverages Ltd. to the complainant, Sanjiva Bottling Company and it reads as under : We refer to Agreements (to include any addenda entered into subsequently) entered into between yourselves ( the Company ) in relation to the production, sale and distribution of Crush , Canada Dry , Schweppes , and Sport Cola Products with an Effective Date of 01 March 1996 ( called the Agreement ). All defined terms used in the Agreement shall have the same meaning prescribed in this letter, save as expressly stated otherwise. Please take this letter as the required 12 months notice, pursuant to clause 19 of our intention not to renew this Agreement on expiry on 28 February 2001 ( the Expiry Date ). We would however, require that you continue to fully carry out all obligations under the terms of your Agreement until the Expiry Date. The agreements executed between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat . A guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In other words 'mens rea' on the part of the accused must be established before he can be convicted of an offence of cheating. (See Jeswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. The State of Bombay AIR 1956 SC 575). In Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 724, it was held as follows : Where the charge against the accused is under S.420 in that he induced the complainant to part with his goods, on the understanding that the accused would pay for the same on delivery but did not pay, if the accused had at the time he promised to pay cash against delivery an intention to do so, the fact that he did not pay would not convert the transaction into one of cheating. But if on the other hand he had no intention whatsoever to pay but merely said that he would do so in order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R 1982 SC 949 and it was held that the First Information Report which does not allege or disclose that the essential requirements of the penal provision are prima facie satisfied, cannot form the foundation or constitute the starting point of a lawful investigation. It is surely not within the province of the police to investigate into a Report (FIR) which does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and the Code does not impose upon them the duty of inquiry in such cases. It was further held that an investigation can be quashed if no cognizable offence is disclosed by the FIR. The same question has been considered in State of Haryana Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604 and after considering all the earlier decisions, the category of cases, in which the Court can exercise its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice, were sumarised in para 108 of the Report and sub- paras 1 to 3 thereof are being reproduced hereinbelow : 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
