Allowed

Ms Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited Represented through Its Director Sanjay Sarna v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC2 Nov 2023Cr.M.P./485/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings and the summoning order under Section 420 IPC, holding the case to be a purely civil dispute disguised as criminal prosecution to evade financial liability.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 25.05.2017 is quashed so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Ms Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 485 of 2018

¶3

1.Saboo Sodium Choro Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 represented through its Director, Sanjay Sarna 2.Sanjay Sarna .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus

¶4

1.The State of Jharkhand. 2.J. M. P. Verma (Prop. Kanhaiya Enterprises) .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Purnendu Sharan, Advocate

¶7

07/ 02.11.2023 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order dated 25.05.2017 passed by learned J.M. 1^st Class, Dhanbad, in Complaint Case No.885 of 2016 whereby and whereudner prima facie case has been found to be made out under Section 420 IPC.

¶9

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the accused/ company deals in business of salt under the brand of Surya Salt which had entered into agreement on 25.10.2014 for supply of salt. In pursuant to the agreement, Rs.2,40,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the Bank account of the accused/company on 18.11.2014. It is alleged that the consignment of salt was not supplied against the said deposited amount.

¶10

3. Statement of complainant and two witnesses was recorded after which the summoning order has been passed. Being aggrieved by the same, the instant Cr. M. P. has been filed.

¶11

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in pursuant to the said agreement, the consignment of salt was supplied to M/s Kanhaiya Enterprises to which invoice dated 15.01.2015 is enclosed regarding despatch of consignment from Govindi to Dhanbad by Simran Transport Company. As a matter of fact, a sum of Rs.1,23,245/- of the petitioners’ Company was due with the complainant, regarding which demand notice was sent on 11.09.2015 (Annexure-4). The arbitral clause was also invoked and it was proposed on behalf of the petitioners to appoint one Mr. Amit Singh as the Arbitrator.

¶12

5. A reply was sent by Lal Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Civil Court, Dhanbad, on behalf of the complainant which has been annexed as Annexture-5. Supply of salt has not been expressly denied in the said reply, rather other issues like payment of salary for staff and 100% replacement of damages has been raised .In Para-8 of the said letter it has been stated , Company had to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as salary for the staff and also for 100% of damage/ breakage which has not been

¶13

¶14

complied. Unless the consignment of salt was sent, question of claiming damages for the breakage did not arise.

¶15

6. In this case, the ex-parte arbitral award has also been passed against the complainant on 19.02.2016 by said Amit Singh. After these events, the instant complaint has been filed only with a view to wreak vengeance and wriggle out the financial liability.

¶16

7. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has defended the impugned order. It is submitted that the consignment was not received and the amount deposited has been misappropriated was the same has been stated in the complaint as well as in the statement of the witnesses.

¶17

8. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is apparent that instant case has been filed after the petitioners sent a notice raising demand of Rs.1,23,245/- and also after the ex-parte arbitral award has been passed. Furthermore, from Paras 8 & 9 of the reply to the demand notice, it is apparent that the complaint has been made regarding the damage of the supplied consignment, which falsifies the basic case of the complainant that the money was misappropriated against the consignment which was to be supplied to the complainant. A purely financial dispute has been given a colour to criminal case to wriggle out of the financial liability.

¶18

Instant criminal prosecution has been initiated to wreck vengeance in a dispute which is purely civil in nature.

¶19

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the summoning order is quashed so far the petitioners above named are concerned.

¶20

The instant Cr. M. P. is allowed.

¶21

Sandeep/

¶22

Uploaded.

Ms Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited Represented through Its Director Sanjay Sarna v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Saboo Sodium Chloro Limited Represented through Its Director Sanjay Sarna v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Kabadi Shankarasa Clothing Company Represented By Its Gpa Holder R K Mishra Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jugeshwar Upadhyay Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jawed Ashraf And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Meera Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Durgesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand