9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d its concerned Directors/Decision makers including Respondent No. 2. FACTS: 3. One Dinesh Sharma (hereinafter referred as 'Appellant') was the authorised representative of the Company M/s BLS Polymers Ltd. According to the case of the appellant, the abovementioned company was engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying plastic compounds such as PE, PVC, XLPE, HFFR etc used in making of wires and cables. EMGEE Cables and Communications limited (hereinafter referred as 'Respondent No. 1') was the Company engaged in the business of manufacturing Copper alloys, wires, conductors, etc. It is stated that one Arun Maheshwari (hereinafter referred as 'Respondent No. 3') was the technical director of Respondent No. 1 and in 2012, Respondent No. 1 through its representatives which also included the Respondent No. 2 approached the Appellant's Company for supply of PVC. 4. It was averred that the respondents showed a rosy picture that they have a substantial turnover which led the appellant to supply the goods on credit basis and hence the parties into transactions from 2012 to 2017. It is the case of the appellant that from 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2018, the appellant supplied good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a period of two months. The Respondent No. 2 invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a Petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing of the FIR No. 218/2018. 10. While passing the impugned order the High Court observed as follows: "It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused company and its directors have cheated by receiving raw material from the complainant from time to time stating that their company reputation and turnover is good, but later they have not paid. According to the ledger accounts. It is clear that there has been a business transaction between two parties since the year 2012, and the accused company has also failed for the goods supplied from time to time, but the payment for the good supplied was made around the year 2016-2017. The accused company did not pay the amount to the complainant company and at present rupees 1,21,51,840 is said to be pending. There have been conflicting allegations and counter allegations from both the sides regarding the payment due to some of the good supply and being substandard and other reasons. It has been alleged against the accused company that they have illegally transferred funds by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re cheated and the directors of the Respondent Company personally gained from the money transactions and issued cheques to the creditors from accounts with insufficient funds. The learned counsel submitted that it is a settled law of this Court that economic offenders should not be given any leniency and that offences of such nature should not be quashed. 13. Learned AAG for Respondent No. 2/State of Rajasthan supporting the case of the appellant submitted that the high Court ought not have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings merely because the transaction involved contractual obligation and it is a settled position of law that the availability of remedy under civil law and criminal law are distinct. 14. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 submitted that the High Court observed that there were business transactions going on between the parties for 7 years and concluded that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature which has been given a criminal colour only to harass the accused. 15. The Counsel further stated that Respondent No. 3 was merely an employee of Respondent No. 1 and he resigned from the post of technical director on 06.05.2016 and even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 18. Though the High Court has unfettered powers conferred by the CrPC for exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482., the same is expected to be used very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. There cannot be any straight jacket formula as to when the High Court would be justified to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC and each case is required to be dealt with on its own merits. 19. In the present case, the High Court quashed the proceedings on the premise that there were long business transactions between the parties and initiation of criminal proceedings was an armtwisting tactic to extract the pending dues from Respondent Company. The Court further observed that there are allegations against the Directors of the company that they used to circulate the transactions through shell companies; however, separate pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shell/dummy companies. This is also an indicator of intention of deceit. It may not be out of place to state that the High Court has passed a vague and cryptic order. The High Court also failed to note that when certain basic material was brought to the notice of the High Court about the criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, it was necessary for the investigating agency to investigate thoroughly, in the process of unearthing the truth before the Court. This aspect could have been tested only by conducting a proper trial. The High Court thus should have refrain from quashing the FIR at the nascent stage of the investigation. 22. We are also deeply concerned by the averments made by Respondent No. 3 on whose instance the FIR filed by the Appellant was quashed by the High Court. It was submitted before the High Court that Respondent No. 3 had resigned from his post on 06.05.2016. The pursual of the material placed before this Court show that this statement was only partially true though the Respondent no. 3 had resigned as a director of the company on 06.05.2016. He was still attached to the company in the capacity of technical director. This fact is being supported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
