Allowed

Kancor Colours Ltd. v. Gopal R Bansal

Kerala HC18 Mar 2021Crl.MC/1694/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings under Sections 406, 420, and 468 IPC arising from a commercial transaction dispute involving the alleged poor quality of chilly supply, ruling that such matters are for civil jurisdiction and lacked criminal mischief.

What did the court decide?

Cognizance of the case under Sections 406, 420, and 468 IPC is quashed.

Kancor Colours Ltd. Vs Gopal R Bansal — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1694 OF 2013(H)

¶6

IN CC 202/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, ALUVA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 KANCOR COLOURS LTD., SY.NO.426, MOTTEBENNUR, NH4, BYADGY TALUK, HAVERY DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 561 106.

¶9

2 K.P.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PURCHASE MANAGER, KANCOR INGREDIENTS LTD, BLDG. 814/C 2ND FLOOR, NEAR SUBURBAN CLUB SEA-PORT AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O, COCHIN 683 021.

¶10

3 VISHVAS GARG, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KANCOR INGREDIENTS LTD, BLDG. 814/C 2ND FLOOR, NEAR SUBURBAN CLUB SEA-PORT AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O, COCHIN 683 021.

¶11

4 BIJO VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, KANCOR INGREDIENTS LTD, BLDG. 814/C 2ND FLOOR, NEAR SUBURBAN CLUB SEA-PORT AIRPORT ROAD, THRIKKAKARA P.O, COCHIN 683 021.

¶12

5 SANJAY MARIWALA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, M.D.KANCOR COLOURS LTD, T8A, A WING, PHONEIX HOUSE, PHONEIX MILLS COMP.462 S.B MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 13.

¶13

6 KISHEN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, FACTORY MANAGER, KANCOR COLOURS LTD., BYADGY TALUK, HAVERY DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 561 106.

¶14

BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN

¶15

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶16

1 GOPAL R BANSAL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/o RAMESWAR BANSAL, SREE VAIBHAV EXPORTS PVT. LTD, VAIBHAV CHAMBER, 2ND FLOOR, 7/1 USHAGANJ 'CHAWANI', INDORE 452 001 (M.P).

¶17

Crl.M.C.No.1694 of 2013

¶18

¶19

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI -682031.

¶20

ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶21

ADDL. VAIBHAV BANSAL, ADVOCATE, R3 AGED 35 YEARS, S/o LATE GOPAL R BANSAL, 201 VAIBHAV CHAMBER, 7/1, USHA GANJ, INDOOR, MADHYA PRADESH

¶22

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 20.6.18 IN Crl.M.A. 6031/18 IN Crl.M.C 1694/13

¶23

R1 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

¶24

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.1694 of 2013

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

In connection with the supply of 500 metric ton of

¶30

chilly to accused Nos. 1 to 6, a crime was registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 468 IPC.

¶31

But after investigation, a referred charge was submitted, against which, a protest complaint was

¶32

maintained, over which, the learned Magistrate took cognizance. The 500 metric ton of chilly supplied to

¶33

accused Nos. 1 to 6 by the defacto complainant was

¶34

returned after more or less 12 months on the ground of poor quality and thereby, the defacto complainant sustained a loss of Rs.37 lakhs is the allegation

¶35

raised by the defacto complainant.

¶36

The learned counsel for the respondent/defacto complainant relied on Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P.

¶37

and others [2013 KHC 4027], Rajesh Bajaj v. State N.C.T. of Delhi [1999 KHC 452] and Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2019 KHC 6154] and submitted that the allegation though

¶38

commercial in nature would attract the offences alleged.

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.1694 of 2013

¶40

¶41

The damages, if any, caused due to the retaining of supplied item for a long period of 12 months on the ground of poor quality is a matter to be adjudicated by a civil court, for which, no criminal liability can be fastened, unless the same was done with the mischievous intention to cheat as defined under Section 415 IPC. Further, Section 406 IPC will not stand attracted since it is a commercial transaction and supplied items were returned on the ground of poor quality. There is no sufficient allegation in order to attract Section 468 IPC and there is no scope for doing any forgery in the issue involved. Hence, the cognizance taken thereof without applying the mind would stand vitiated and liable to be quashed. I do so.

¶42

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

DMR/-

Crl.M.C.No.1694 of 2013

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶51

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE/PROTEST COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE 1, ALUVA, DATED 04.10.2012.

¶52

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE WITH THE RELEVANT ENTRY OF PETITION REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE THRIKKAKARA POLICE. ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT IN CRIME NO.1374/2012 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS THUS FAR IN THE PROTEST COMPLAINT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE 1, ALUVA.

¶53

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER.

¶54

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

¶55

// TRUE COPY //

¶56

P.A. TO JUDGE

Kancor Colours Ltd. v. Gopal R Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kancor Colours Ltd. v. Gopal R Bansal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Hameed Vs Kunhammed Haji

Gigi Thomas, Vs Johny K.Thomas

V.K.Susheela Vs Ramachandran

Indirabhai, Vs Rajeevan

Jayachandran O.K. Vs State of Kerala

V.Sajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala