h.<al> Harish Nair sought quashing of an order of cognizance. The High Court held that the facts evidenced only a civil dispute concerning deficiency of service and loss recovery, not a criminal offence. The application was allowed.
Cognizance in Complaint Case No.1852C of 2002 dated 17.4.2003 is set aside and the proceeding is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19847 of 2010
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- EASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) =========================================================== 1. Harish Nair, Service Manager, Bayer, Diagnostic, Indian Limited, 589 Sayajipura, Aajwa Road, Baroda -390019, India .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh S/O Late Madan Singh, Tribhuwan Diagnostic Centre, Hospital Road, Motihari, Town & District Champaran ,Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. M.N. Jha, APP For Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-01-2016
The Petitioner seeks quashing of the order of cognizance dated 17.4.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint case No.1852C of 2002.
The case of the Complainant is that he had ordered an analyzer from the Company of the Petitioner which was supplied after taking the full amount, but it did not work despite the intervention of an engineer sent from the Company and then the Complainant’s firm also had to pay extra amount for no valid reason. He then sent a legal notice to the Company for making good his loss but it not reply.
It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19847 of 2010 dt.25-01-2016
2/2
even conceding the allegations in the Complaint Petition, no criminal offence would be made out. For deficiency of service the Complainant has moved the Consumer Forum but he lost even before the said Forum as is evident from Annexure 2.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that huge loss was caused to the Complainant, the Petitioner should be put on trial.
Having considered that no criminal offence would be made out in the facts of the case, the application stands allowed and the proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 17.4.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in Complaint case No.1852C of 2002 is hereby set aside.
(Anjana Prakash, J)
Narendra/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cognizance in a complaint involving deficiency of service amounts to a criminal offence.
Whether the petitioner should be put on trial for not replying to a legal notice regarding defective supply of goods.
Harish Nair
The State Of Bihar
Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh
Anjana Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
