The Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a Magistrate's order refusing to refer a Section 138 NI Act complaint to police, holding the matter stemmed from long-drawn civil litigation between partners.
The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the impugned order is dismissed.
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.
-1-
CRM-M-20320 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20320 of 2017 Date of Decision: 20.07.2017
Vinayak Sood
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Ms. Sukhdip Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P-15) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, declining the application of the petitioner filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for lodging FIR against respondents No.4 to 6.
The undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner and his father were partners of M/s Kay Pee Industry formed in the year 1962. Vide reconstitution deed dated 01.10.2013, the private respondents were also inducted as partners in the aforesaid firm to the extent of 5%. Finally, the petitioner and his father retired vide retirement deed dated 15.01.2014 leaving the private respondents as partners of the aforesaid firm. According
to the retirement deed/settlement, the private respondents had to make Ravinder Singh 2017.07.21 19:02 payment of around ` 7 crores, excluding some payments recveivable from I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document M/s Suzlon and its associates, to the petitioner towards the capital of the
-2-
CRM-M-20320 of 2017
petitioner-complainant and his father in the aforesaid firm. In lieu thereof, the private respondents issued four different cheques totalling to 4 crores, out of which one cheque of 10 lakh was got encashed by the petitioner and the amount of 1 crore against another cheque was transferred in the account of the petitioner through RTGS by taking the cheque back. Remaining two cheques amounting to 2.90 crores (one for 40 lakh and another for 2.5 crores) when were presented to the bank, the same were dishonoured, whereupon the petitioner filed complaint against private respondents under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula. The petitioner also moved complaint dated 22.08.2016 to various authorities of the police in Punjab for registering the case under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC against the private respondents, but the same was rejected by the police. To counter the petitioner, the private respondents also filed complaint against him before the police authorities at Ludhiana, which too was dismissed vide report dated 16.02.2015 by the police. Simultaneously, petitioner got appointed an Arbitrator by moving an application before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court to adjudicate upon the entire dispute between the petitioner and private respondents, wherein with the consent of the parties, KPMG International Accountancy Firm was appointed by the Arbitrator to conduct the forensic audit of the accounts of the aforesaid partnership firm, so as to ascertain as to how much amount, the private respondents were liable to pay to the petitioner.
The main allegation of the petitioner, in the impugned complaint,
Ravinder Singhis that, the private respondents have committed fraud with him by procuring 2017.07.21 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document affidavit dated 14.03.2014 from him for its submission before the Punjab
-3-
CRM-M-20320 of 2017
Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited, as no objection to transfer the industrial premises No.D-108, Focal Point, Phase-V, Ludhiana, worth 3,08,29,250/-, in favour of the private respondents without making payment against two cheques of 2.90 crores and got the same dishonoured deliberately and intentionally.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that learned Magistrate ought to have referred the matter to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation instead of trying the same himself, because the offence allegedly committed by respondents No.4 to 6 is cognizable. Since the private respondents had issued two post-dated cheques for ` 2.9 crores to discharge their liability and later on got dishonoured the same, thus, had committed criminal breach of trust and other offences mentioned in the complaint by not discharging their liability of making payment to the petitioner and have illegally occupied the industrial premises of the petitioner bearing No.D-108, Focal Point, Phase-V, Ludhiana, which required thorough investigation by the police.
I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
From the facts discussed above, it is evident on record that there is long drawn litigation between the petitioner and private respondents qua various disputes. Every possible effort is being made by the petitioner and the private respondents as well, to involve each other in any criminal case or otherwise so as to settle their scores in an illegal way. More so, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
point out as to in what manner, the petitioner is affected, if the learned Ravinder Singh 2017.07.21 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this documentMagistrate has not chosen to refer his complaint to the police under Section
-4-
CRM-M-20320 of 2017
156(3) Cr.P.C. and has intended to try the same himself.
In view of the discussion above, petition is dismissed.
(RAMENDRA JAIN) JUDGE
July 20, 2017 R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Ravinder Singh 2017.07.21 19:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Judge ought to have exercised the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to refer the complaint for police investigation.
Whether the matter has arisen out of a civil dispute and is merely an attempt to involve the other party in a criminal case.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinayak Sood
State of Punjab and others
Ramendra Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
