Dismissed

Mr.Harshad Phajge and 2 Others v. the State of Telangana, Rep by P.P and Another

Telangana HC23 Sept 2025CRLP/10937/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused persons challenging orders dismissing discharge applications and confirming the same in revision, the High Court held that specific allegations of conspiracy and cheating require a full trial. The pendency of a civil suit did not bar criminal prosecution. Consequently, the criminal petitions were dismissed, though the appearance of the

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions were dismissed. Appearance of the petitioners in the trial court trial is dispensed with unless specifically required.

Mr.Harshad Phajge and 2 Others Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN .. THE^HIGHCOURT AT HYDERABAO^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA}

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO}

¶6

CRIMINAL^{PETITION Nos.10936 and 10937of 2017}

¶7

CRIMINAL^{PETITION .No.10936oF 2017}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Santhosh^{Sonawane, S/o. Thakuji Sonawane' ?Seq 30 vears Occ Private} Service. C/o.^{M/s. Pvrocrat} #idrn"t^{tt'i"J-loei r!' Flo'or' RSC complex'} ;1L; i C. e.ij. a"ripr,,^{NaviM umbai, Maharashtra}

¶10

...Petitioner/Accused^No'8

¶11

AND

¶12

The State^{Of Telangana,Rep By P'P rep b-y.Police'BDL Bhanoor'Medak} through its^{pubtic pJi;;i;I} -n'ig'n Cour[ot'.ludicature at Hyderabad for the bi"-t"-oi ilr"ngan"^{and the StatJ of AndhraPradesh'}

¶13

M/s.^{EcologiquePetro, ChemicalsPvt Ltd} '{ffice^{at Plot No 175'Phase-2'} IDA Pashamytarur""i,"t,n""hJill^{l'r"o"i .(D;' t"t'noana'India having its} reoistered office^{at th6)E)dlbi8;Fi;|il;s AilC Gachibowli' Ransa Reddv -} btd65r,^" ilil-^{fup"i;y-"iff-'Nd;;piisDirectorNikhir Jasani, S/o} Bheemaiahjaghni,^{aged 29 years' Occ Busrness}

¶14

... RespondenUDefacto-com^plainant

¶15

PetitionunderSection482ofCr-P.Cprayingthatinthe.circumstances statedintheMemorandu,oro.unosofCriminalPetition,theHighCourtmay be^pleased to^{call for in"'t"""id" relating-toordersdated30-11-2016in} Crl,Rev.Pet.No^{.2a of 2ot6-o"'ih;ii6 of the-Courtof the Judge' FamilyCourt-} cum_vil Additional^{oi.triJt lnis".iion. Judge, Medak at sangareddymade} confirming the^{order o"t"i'26-r-zoioin cr.t'nllpuo'543 of 2015 in c c No 392 of} 2O15 onthe^{file ot tne cJu?-ofthe Additional Judicial Magistrate of^First Class,} Sangareddy^{and quash il;';;';} iurther allowing^{the Crl'MP'No 543 of 2015 in} C.C.No.392^{ot 2015 as} Prayed^for'

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF^{2017(CRLPMP. NO:121410F 20'.t71}

¶17

PetitionunderSection4E2ofCl.P.Cprayingthatinthe.circumstances stateo in ine^{Memorandumof Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may} be^{pleased to grant stay ot-artlurtherproceedings includingthe appearance of}

¶18

the petitioners in c c No 3 g2, .of 2015 0n the fire of the Judiciar First crass Magistrate, l\rledak, Sanga Reddy, p"roirg ii;p'".'j, or rn" Criminal petition.

¶19

CRIMI NA L PETIT ION.No. 10937 0F 2017

¶20

Between:

¶21

1 flti;tii;ltX,,til,ffi,.jJfli..j,n,r phajge, ased 2e years, occ Serf Ernproyed,

¶22

Devidas Employed Gopale, S/o. Ramchandra Gopale, aged 2g years, Crcc Self

¶23

Jayesh N Mumbai, ,ll5flTrr,fl,?"oshok^{Nikkam,aged 2e years, occ Setf Emptoyed,} R/o

¶24

(All havino corr

¶25

*a"#hhl:,,Jiil#iEr?:.f,xJ:i,?,,l,,i;[ii?ffi^t"f si]t",ti:dr"J

¶26

AND

¶27

...petitioner/Accused Nos.1,,l3 & 21

¶28

The State Of Tetangana. Eep py p.p, rep OV ig,flcg, BDL ghanoor, Merjak, throuqh its^pubric eiosecutoi H[2r'' cbr"{oTiro,cature at Hyderabad, frlr the State of Telangarra and the StriJor-nLlnij traoesh

¶29

p,ot N 17s, prrase-2,

¶30

' ryi ftT,i",%iEi,;:'?:ffs:ijl ,f,s"l,o^,oq:?-,' ,filli,jt:t%l:

¶31

resisrered oni"e',r r ooie/b-_e-io, i;jnffi A",,4 !:,iiilprffi; 500032, Dutv rep Oy- iti- lrfairlg;,yg,,,oiru.tor Nikhit Ja_gani, S/o. Bheemaiahjag'ani aseoTs v"irr,' ilIHrHn"...

¶32

...RespondenUDe-Facto Compl,rinant

¶33

Petition under sr>ctron 4g2 0f cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorancum or orouna. "i ciri#i"ir petition, the High couii ,,rv be pleased to ca, fc r ^,.," i"."ror i"rr'ii"g"'io orders dated 4-s_2016 in crl'Rev^pet No ll of 2c16 o" tn"Jir" oi"t;: 3d of the Judge, Famirv .ourt_ Cum-VIl Additional District and Sessions .luO-g; Medak at Sangareddv made confirming the orders oateo 20-1-2016;;.iMdiio.543 0f 2015 inc.c.No.ri92 0f 2015 0n the fire of the .ourt of the Additionri .lro-i"irr r4agistrate of First orass, Sangareddy and ouash rhe same further arowino *,u crt.up rvo.543 0f 2c15 in C.C No.392 of 2O1S m pr,ryJroi^{'-'\rrvr qrrvYrlrrv}

¶34

t.A. NO:1OF2017(CR LPMP. NO : 12142 oF 2017l

¶35

petition under section -4g2 0f .cr.p c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of-Ground. or cri,Iilli petition, the High court may be preased to qrant stav of ar -furth"r p,o"uJrngs'incruding the appearance c,t the 'of-thu petitioners in c.c.No 392 0f 2015 0n ih" fir" oi i-',-"'.lroi"i"t First crass Magislrate, Medak, Sanga Reddy District, pending airpos,f c,mtnal petition.

¶36

This Petition coming^{on for hearing, uponperusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of criminal^{Petition and upon hearingthe argumentsof Sri N.Naveen} Kumar, Advocate for the^{Petitionersin both criminalPetitionsand the Sri} Vivekananda Reddy,^{Assistant PublicProsecutoron behalf of the Respondent} No.1 in both criminal^{Petitionsand of sri B.Kiran Kumar, Advocatefor the} Respondent No.2^{in both Criminal Petitions}

¶37

The Court made the^{following:COMMONORDER}

¶38

THE HONOURABLE sRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RACI CRIMI,NAL PETITION Nos.10936 and 10937 of2Ot7

¶39

COMMON ORDER:

¶40

Criminal^peririon No.10936 of 2Ol7 is filed by the petitioner/i a,:cused No.g and Criminal petition No.10937 of 2077 is filcd t;y the petitioners / accused Nos. 1 l, 13 and 2l aggrieved by rhe orders dated 30. ll.2O16 and 04.O5 2O16 in Crl.R.P.Nos.24 and 11 of 2016 confirrning the orders passed by t ee lcarned Judicial Magistrate of First ()lass, Sangaredd,v, dated 20.Ol,2O16 in Crl,M.p.No.543 of 2015 in C.C.No.!t92 of 20 1S, v.,here_under rhe discharge applications filcd by the petitioners/acc,sed Nos.B, 1 t, 13 and 21 were disrrrissed. The issue raised in both thc <:ases is one and the sarne. Hcnce, both the crirninal petitions are clubbecl togcther and disposed of the sarne by way of a cornlTlon or dr:r.

¶41

2. Brief facts of ttre case:

¶42

Responclent No.2 filed a private cornplaint before the Judicial First Cl.rss Magistrate, Medak at Sangart:ddy stating that his cornpany, a registered start_up formerl by two young cntlcpreneurs, was incruced by 1.he petitro;rer.s and other a<.cusecl to purchas e a 2 TpD pyrolysls Oil

¶43

¶44

Prodr.-rction Plant for a consideration^{ofRs.41,9a,9OO/-.} Accused No.1 is a^proprietary concern clairning to^{be a} pioneer in manufacturing $rrolysis oil plants.^Accused No.2 is proprietor of accused No.1^hrrn, accused^{Nos.3 and} 4, who are sons of accused^No.2, are^{Directors,and} acctrsed Nos.S to 22 are ernployees,^{who actively abetted} the transactions. Frorn the^{very inception, the petitioners} and other acclrsed^{dishonestly conspiredtocheat} respondent No.2 by^{rnisrepresentingthe nature of their} busine ss throrlgh^{rnultiple dubious entities and websites} u,ith overlapping addresses, by^{issr.ring rnisleading} quotations with exaggerated claims of^{effrciencyand} profitability, by delaying supply of machinery,^{by sending} defective and substandard^{parts withoutdelivering} essential cornponents, and^{by supplying equiprnent with} inherent defects, which rnade^{installationand} cornmissioning impossible.^{Despitepayrnent of the fr'rll sale} consideration under^{purcl-rase order dated C5. 1O.2O 1 1, the} petitioners and other accused^{dragged theprocessfor} ncarly 18 rnonths between^{March, 2Ol2 and October, 2013} with false asst.rances and^{partialpayrnents,before} abandoning the project altogether. The acts of the pctitioners and other accused^thus disclose a clear

¶45

¶46

consplracy to cheat and dishonestly induce respo;tdent No.2 to part with money for defective plant, thereby causing wrongful losrs to respondent No.2 cornplainant and wrongful gain to ther-rselves. The petitioners filed applicatiorL i.e., Crl.M.P.No.543 of 20 15, before the learned Additional Judicial Firr;t Class Magistrate at Sangareddy, ser:king discharge thern in C.C.No.392 of 2O1S and the same was disrnissed o r 20.O I.2O16. euestioning the sarne, the petitioncr/ accused No.g filed Crl.R.p.No.2 4 ol 2016 anrl the petitioners / accused Nos.11, 13 and 2l ftled, Crl.R.p.No.11 of 20 76 berfore the learned Sessions Judge and both the said cases w:re dismissed on 30.1i.2016 and 04.OS.1lO16 respectivell,.

¶47

Heard NIr. N. Nzrveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Iv'Ir. B . Kiran Kurnar, learned cor-rnser for respondent i{o.2 / de facto cornplainant, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Redcly, rearnecl Assistant pubric prosecrtor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1_State.

¶48

4. Subrnission S of learned cotl nsel for the petitionr )rs:

¶49

4 .I . I-earned co u n scl submitted that the petitioners h ave not cornrnittecl any offence, much less, the alleged offences and they are c,ttly ernployees of accused No.l firrn and theSr

¶50

\ )

¶51

¶52

discharged^{their duties, which were allotted to thernThere} is no conspiracy^{between the petitioners and accusedNos'2} and 3 and^{there are no specillc allegations againstthe} petitioners to attract^{the ingredientsof Sections42O} '^4la and 415 read^{with 34, 97, lO9 and 12OB of the Indian} Penal Code,^{1860 (for short, 'the IPC')'}

¶53

4.2. He further^{submitted thatrespondentNo'2 filed a} private cornplaint^{irnplicating the petitioners as accused by} rnaking baid^{aliegationsthat they were conspirators and} abettors and^{there is no rnaterialon record to establishany} conspiracy^{between the petitioners and accused Nos'2and} .a

¶54

4.3. The^{petiLioners frled application i'e', Crl'M'P'No'543of} 2015, seeking^{clischarge them inC'C'No'392of2015'} wherein, they^{specifically contendedthat respondentNo'2} had not^{produced any material to show that the petitioners} had any role^{in the alleged. offences' The entireallegations} are levelled,^{againstaccused Nos' 1 to 4 only'}

¶55

4.4. Tne learned^{Magistrate, witkrotltproperly considering} the contentions^{raised by the petitioners, disrnissedthe} discharge application^{without assigningany reasons' He} furtkrer str.brnitted that^{the learned Sessions Judge also}

¶56

¶57

¶58

failed to con.sider the grounds raised by the petitionr:rs in Crl.R.P.Nos. l,l and. 24 of 2016 and simply dismisserl the said revision petitions by confirming the orcier of the trial Courl and the sarne is contrary to law.

¶59

4.5. He alsrt submitted that now the petitioners are residing in the State of Maharashtra. By virtue of implicating thern as an accused in the present case, they are facing very difficult to attenci the Court proceedings by travelling a long distance

¶60

4.6. He lurthLer submitted thal entire complaint does not constitute an1, offence against the petitioners and also trrere is no vicarious liability. The only allegation rnade against the petitioner,/ accusecl No.g is that he sent four e-mail,s to respondent I\1o.2. Mere sending the mails bv the petrtioner / accr-l sed No.g does not constituto the a1le,ged offences, espe<:ially the petitioner/accused No.g discharl3ed his duties as an ernploycc of accused No.1 hr.m. Respondent No.2 impricated the petitioners tc, dissorve :_he disputes between him and accused No.1 llrm and accus;ed Nos.2 to 4 b5. neaking ornnibus allegations. Even according to tllg allegations made in the complaint, accused No.1 fir-rn had supplied the machinery to respondent No.2. Basi:tg

¶61

¶62

Llpon the allegcd^{defects in thernaterial/ equiprnen t} supplied by accused^{No.I firm,respondentNo'2 isnot} entitled to implicate^{the petitioners as accused,especially} they are only ernployees^{and there is no dishonest intention} on their part. Hence,^{the continuation of the proceedings} in C.C.No.392 of^{2Ol5 against the petitioners is clear abuse} of the process of law^{and the same is liable to be qr.ashed'}

¶63

4.7. In support^{of hiscontention,herelied upon the}

¶64

following^judgrnents.

¶65

1 Vishnu I(urnar Shukla^{and another v'} State of Uttar Pradesh^{and anotherl;}

¶66

2 Vipin Sahni and another^v.Central Bureau of Investigation2;

¶67

3 State of Orissa^{v-DebendraNath} Padhi3;

¶68

4 Central Bureau^of Investigation, Hyderabad v. I(. Narayana^{Flaoa; and}

¶69

5 Yogesh alias Sachin^{Jagdish Joshiv'} State of Maharashtras;

¶70

5 Srrbrnissions of learned corrnsel for respondent No.2

¶71

I (2023) 15 scc 502 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 511

¶72

'^{(zoo5) 1 scc 568}

¶73

o 1zotz19 scc 512

¶74

'^{(2oo8)10 scc 394}

¶75

-7

¶76

¶77

5.1. Per cc'ntra, learned counsel submitted thal the petitioners l-rave not disputed the l,ransacLion bel.ween accused No.I hrm and respondent No.2 and they are not disputing their relationship with accused No.1 firrn. The petltloners along with other accused with a dishrtnest intention liaudulently conspired and indu<;ed resporLdent No.2 to ptrrchase the rnachinery i.e., F)zrolysis Oil Extraction Plant, which produces 2 Ton per clay (2 apgr; oii, and he has given Rs.41,9B,9OO/_ in thc, nar.e of accused No.1 firm. I{owever, the said rnachinery supplied b1_ the petitioners and other accused is a delective one. In spite of repeated den:.ands /reqlrests made by respondent No.2 the petitioners and other accused have not taken any stef)s to rectify the sarle. The petitioners along with accused Nos.2 and 3 were present at the tirnc of purchasing the machinery ar:Ld they were well aware about the defects of the rnachine{r supplied by accused No. 1 hrm.

¶78

5 .2 . FIe furth er subrnitted that thc petitioners aiong rarlll other accusecl conspired to ensure that faulty machirtery was supplied to respondent No.2, they have made h alf_ hearted irres;ponsible attempts while instzrlling the machinery. The petitioners were present at the site o r a

¶79

¶80

mrrnber of^{occasions and accLlsedNos'2 to 4consprnng} with the^{petitionersrcceived a huge amountfrom} respondent No.2.^{There are specific allegations level1ed} against each^{of ttre petitionersin the complaint'To} sr-rbstantiate^{theallegations rnade in thecornplaint,} respond.ent^{No.2 hled rnaterial docurnents' The petitioners} fr.led discharge^{applicat ion, uide Crl'M'P No'543 of 2O15'} withfalseallegations.LcarnedMagistratehasrightly disrnissed the^{dischargc aPPlicationon} 2C..o.2016 by giving cogent reasons. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ accr.rsed^{No.8 filed Crl'R'P'No'24 of 2016 and the} petitioners / accused^{Nos'11,13 and 21 filed Cr1'R'P'No'11} of 2016.^{After considering thegrorlnds raised bythe} petitioners, the^{learned SessionsJr'rdge' disrnissedtkre said} criminal revision^{petitions.There are nogrounds tcl} interfere^{with the} impugned ord.ers^{passed by the learned} and the criminal^{petitions filed bythe} Sessions Judge petltloners are^{liable to be dismissed}

¶81

Analvsis:

¶82

Having considered^{the rival subrnissions made by the} respective^{parties and after perusalof the rnateria-lavailable} on record, it^{reveals thatrespondent No'2 / defacto}

¶83

¶84

cornplaint lodged a private compraint under Section 2oo of the Cr.P.C. ,tn 11 .O2.2O1,5 on the file of ther Judiciai First class Magistrate, sangareddy, wherein it is stated that accused No.1 is a proprietary concern ancl dealing with business of manufacturing p5rrolysis OiI Extracting plant and rnachinery and claims to have successlully execnte:d on a turnke-y basis, the supply, insrallation and comrnissior-ring of variotrs plants of capacrty of Onc Ton per Day (1 TPD), Two.lon per Day (2 TpD), Fivc.I.on per Dzry (5 TPD) and J'en Ton per Dry (10 TpD) plzrolysis Oil Production plants for its various customers in India as well as abroad. The allegations rnade against the petitioners are that they alotrg uzith other accused rnade a bogus sale of a Two Ton Per Day (2 TpD) $rrolysis oir production plar: t to respondent Nr>.2 for a slrrn of Rs.4 l,ga,gOO / _ and execrrted agreernents. The machinery supplied by the pctitioners and other acc:used 1o respondent No.2 is a clefective ()ne. Frorn the dat<: of inception, there is a consplracy between petitior-rers anrl accused Nos.1 to 4 and there rs a dishorLest intention to c.reat respondent No. 2 suppliecl the defe c.,ive machinery zrnd received substantial amount of Rs.41,98,OOO/

¶85

¶86

The learned'^{Magistrate' after recordingthe staternents} of respondent^{No'2 and after going throughthe documents'} took^{cogrtizanceand issued sutrrmollsto the petitioners} Subsequently'^{tkrepetitioners} and other^accused' approached^{thisCourt and liled Crl'P'No'62O6 of2015} seeking^{to quash the proceedingsin C'C'No'392 of 2015'} However,^{ttre petitionerssought permissionto withdraw the} above^{said. crirnina-I petition with the liberty to availa-11 the} rernedies^{availabieto them under law including filing of the} discharge^{petition and also pctitionunclerSection 2O5 of} Cr.P.C.^{before the trial Court'Accordingly'thisCourt} dismissed^{ttre Criminal Petition on23 'l]r '2015as} withdrawn^{and granted liberty as sought by the petitioners'}

¶87

B. Thereafter,^{thepetitioners fiiedCrl'M P'No'543of} 2015 seeking^{to dischargetkrem from C'C'N o'392 of 2Ol5} by pleading^{thattkieYhaveno connection withaccused} No.1 firm'^{The learned Magistrate'after consideringthe} contentions^{of the respectiveparties' Sections 227 aod 245} of Cr.P.C.^{and the judgmentscited by both the parties'held} that a^pirna facie^{case wasmade outagainst the} petitioners,^{as they are shown as accused and abettors of} offences^{allegedagainstaccusecl Nos' 1 to 4ar d atthis}

¶88

¶89

stagc, based on the rnaterial on record, the petitionet.s are not entitled for the relief seeking to discharge them from C.C.No.392 of 2O15.

¶90

9 Aggriev:cl by the said order, the peti tioner / acc u sed No.S filed Crl.R.p.No.24 of 2016 and the petrtroners / accused Nos. 1 1, 13 and 21 filecl Crl.R.p.A o. I 1 of 20 16 on the f-rle of the Judge, Farnily Court-cunt VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak Distri()t at Sangareddy. The learned Sessions Judge, after considerring the allegatio:rs in the complaint and the transac:tion between the trrarties involving lakhs of rupees, herd that the petitioners, being the employees of accused No. 1 f.rm, played a rore by sending e-mails to respondent No.2 and the materiar placed by respondent No.2 is very m-rch suffucient tl a ! they were present. in the u,ork site and accused No.2, heing the proprietor of accused No. 1 firm, did not dispute the transaction and further held t hat whether the trretitioners were employees of accused No. 1 firm, whether they had any role in respect oI_ ;_he transaction lte-,ween accused No.1 hrm and other accus;ed Nos.I to 4, ."viii be revealed during the course of trial. L,ul not at the stilge of frarning of charges and disrrrissed

¶91

]

¶92

¶93

04.O5.2016^andother Crl.R.P.No.1^{I of 2016on} Crl.R.P.No.2^{4 of 2OL6 on 30' lI'2016'} case of^{respond'entNo 2 istLrat the} 1O. The^sPecific a conspiracy^{supplicd thcdefective} petitioners^with amount^of induced^{him toPaY an} machinery^and Rs.41,9B,OO^O /-^{to accusedNo' 1 firm and the} petitioners, firm, scnt^mailson being^{ernployees ofaccr-rsedNo ' 1} and 06.12'201O^and 22.L r.20to,^{25 -L!'20to', 26't r'20to} site on^{a nr-rrnber of} theY^{were also Present at ttre work} occasions,^{thereby they have conspiredwith other accr-sed} and cheated^{him from the date of inccption'The learned} Magistrate^{as well as thelearnedSessions Judge 'after} the material^ProclucedbY taking^{intoconsideration} respondent^{No'2'carne to theconclusion thatthe} petitioners^{were ex-employeesof accused No 1 hrrn'}

¶94

1 1 . Ttre^{core contentionsoflearned colrnselfor} the of accused that the^{petitionerswereemployees} petitloners and theY^{dischargedtheir duties'} whrich^were No. 1^frrrn aliotted^{byaccr'rsedNo' 1 firm' and that they are not} conspirators^{and abettors are concerned'whether tkrere is} arry conspiracy^{betweenthe petitionersand acctlsedNos'1} to 4 or^{not, wkrether they are abettors or not' are disputed}

¶95

I )

¶96

{----,-.?...!,51'.-.:.-

¶97

¶98

facts artd th e same cannot be adjudicated in the present crrminal petition exercising the powers conferred lrnder Section 482 of the Cr.p.C. and the same have to be revr:aled alter a full fle:dged triai.

¶99

The othr:r contention raised by the learned counse.l for the petitioners that the nature of the allegations rnade agarnst tlee petitioners in the complaint is purely civil in nature and respondent No.2 has already frled a suir. in O.S.No.472 of 2016 against accused Nos.1 to 4. for reco.ery of amount r.;f Rs.2,44,24,n7 I/_ and the same is pending, hence, thc cr.lntinuation of crirninal proceedings agarnst ,he petitioners, is contrary to law, is concerned, basing upon pendency of civil case, the petitioners are not enti ed to seek quashing oI. the proceedings, as both the cases are different and distinctive. 1 3. Simiiarl_v, the other contention raised by learn<:d counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners trave n()t recelV ed any sal: p166gsds from respondent No.2 and entire sale proceeds rve:re paid to accused No.1 firm. Whether the petitio ners have r ecerved any arnolrnt liom accused No. I firm pertaining to the defective machinery which was solcl to respondent I'Io.2 or at the insitance of petitioners

¶100

¶101

any monetarY^{loss or whether} respondent^{No.2 sustained} between the Petitioners^and there is^{anyconsplracy} accrlsed^{Nos.2 to 4,these} aspects^{trave to bc revealed} dtrring the^{courseof trial only'}

¶102

14.InVishnuI(rrrnarShuklasuprd,'theHon''blcSupreme Court held^{thatsince there wasno susPicion, lctalonc} strong or^{gravesr'rspicion' against theappellants'} subjecting^{them to a full-fledged trial would be unjustihed'} ol M.P., the^Court Referring^{to Priyanka Mishrav'State} emphasized^{thatindividuals must beprotectcd from} vexatiou.s^{and unwarranted prosecutions and frorn being} dragged^{into unnecessary trials' The High Courts have a} duty to^{qrrash such proceedings or discharge the accused} in deserving^{cases'As tkre High Cor-rrt failed to do so' thc} Supreme^{Court intervened' reaffirmingits role asthe} "sentinel on the^{qr. i vive"'}

¶103

In^{Vipin Sahni supra' theHon'ble Supreme Cotlrt} held that^{the Magistratewasfully justifredinexercrsrng} power r.rnder^{Section 239 Cr.PC to dischargetLre appellants} of offences^{r-rnder Sections42O and 12OB IPC' as ttrere was} no material^{to inferconspiracy ord'eceit' Ttre CourI} disclosed^atthe observed^{that themortgagehadbecn}

¶104

¶105

¶106

olrtset ancl ,\ICTE never claimed dishonest inducenrent, thereby nega ting the essentia_l ingredients of cheating or conspiracy. The High Court,s contrary finding of suppressiotr was based on a technical apprc,ach unsupported by facts. Accordingiy, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court,s order dated 20.O1.2,f23 and restorecl the Magistrate,s discharge order.

¶107

In Debendra Nath padhi supra, the Hon,.ble Supreme Court held th at the expression ..record of the case,, in Section 227 Cr _p .C. ref-ers to the materiai and documelts forwarded b1, the Magistrate under Section 2O9, and the accused has no right to produce defence materia,l at the stage of lramin.g of charge, such right being available only at trial. Thc Court explained that Section 227 wirs lncorporated il1 the 1973 Code. to prevent undlre harassment of tl-re accused by enabling discharge where the evidence collec:cd falls short of the rnrnlrnum legzLl reql-urernents. Unlike the old Code of 189g, which providerl for a lengthy ccmmittal inquiry under Sections 2O7 anct 2O7-A, the present Code, based on the Law Commission,sr recommendation, abolished that procedure to avoid delay. Now, the Cor'lr.t of Session alone frames charges under

¶108

¶109

Section22aiftheaccuseclisnotdischargedunderSection 227, and, evidence^{is taken only after charges are framed'}

¶110

In I(.^{Narayana Rao supra' theHon'bleSupremc} Court, relying^{on SajjanKumar v' CBI' reiterated the scope} of Sections^{227 and 228 Cr'P'C'It heid that at the stage of} frarning ofcharge,^{the courthas the powerto sift and weigh} the evidence^{only to see if a prirna facie case exists lf the} material^{raises grave suspicion tkrat tkre accused may havc} cornmitted^{an ofl.ence, charges mustbe framed; il itraises} only mere^{sr-rspicion, discharge is warranted'Thc} Magistrate^{is not a rnere post office but rnr'rst apply judicial} mind to the^{broad probabilities, documents' and basic} infirmities,^{without conclucting a rovingenquiryinto merits} asinatrial.Theprovisionaimstopreventwastagcof public time and^{harassmentto the accused where the} evidentiary^{rnateria'l falls short of the legal threshold'}

¶111

1a. In Yogesh^{supra, the Hon'ble Sr-rprerne Court} explained^{the scopeof discharge under Section 227 Cr'P'C'} The Cottrt^{held that at the stage prior to frarning of charge'} the Judge^{is bound to exarninewhether there is "suffrcient} ground" to^{proceed against the accused,on the basis o[ the} record and^{documents submitted''This necessarilyinvolves}

¶112

¶113

application of .iudicial rnind, with a limited power to silt and weigl'r the material to see if a prirna facie case is made: out. The test virr jes with the facts of each case, but broaclly, if two views are possible and the evidence only raises mer.e suspicion, as opposed to grave suspicion, the accused rnust be discharge,l. At this stage. the Judge is r)ot conce-ned with the ultirnate result of the trial, but onl1, with whether the rnaterial s if unrebutted, make a conviction reason ably po s sible.

¶114

The abc,ve judgments which are reiied upon by learned courtsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that ttrere are specific ailegations levelled against the petitioners that they acted as consprrators and abettors of accrlsred Nos.2 to 4 and they supplied defective machinerl. by receiving huge irrnorrnts from respondent No.2.

¶115

It is pertinent to mention that the learned Magistra te after due verifi,:ation of the record passed thr: impugnt:d order dated 20.)7.2O75 in Crl.M.p.No.543 of 2015 holdirtg that the petitioners were accused and abettors of th e offences alleged accused Nos. 1 to 4 and. rightty dismisseC the discharge a1>piication b.y giving cogglt reasons, which

¶116

¶117

¶118

was corrflrmed^{by the learned Sessions Judge' Hence'the} petitioners that^the contention^{of learned counselforthe} especiallY^without 1ea rned Magistratc^{tookcognizance'} assigning^{reasonsin the absence of any prirna facie case} against^{the petitioners, is also not tenable under law'}

¶119

The^{record. fr-rrtherreveals that respondent No'2 filed} suit in O.S.No.472^{of2OL6 for recoveryof an arnount of} Rs.2,44,24,a77/-,^{which is s subsequentto the frling of the} private complaint^{in C'C'No'392 of 2Ol5' Ttre nature of the} relief sought^{inthe suit and the allegations made inthe} complaint^{are different and distinctive' It is trite law that} rnere pendency^{of civil proceedingsdoeS not preclr.de the} party to initiate^{criminal proceedingsunder thepenal} provlslOns.

¶120

It is^{relevantto rnentionthat in I{' Jagadish v' Udaya} I(urnar G.S.6,^{the Hon'lcle Apex Court has reaffirmed the} weli-settled^{principle that the sarne set of facts rnay give} rise to both^{civil andcrirninal proceedings} '^andthat availing a^{civilrernedydoes not bar the initiation of} criminal^{prosecution'The Court reiiedheavily} on precedents lrke^{KamaladeuiAganual u' State of W'B artd}

6 (2020) 14 scc s52

./,

Tisuns Chemical Ind.ustry u Rajesh Agaru.tal, to reil.erate that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed rrrerely because a ci',,i1 dispute is also pending between the parties. In l{arnqlctdeui Agaruual, it was categorically held that the pendency of civil proceedings does not justify quasihing crirninal prc,ceedings, especially where the aliegat_ions disciose a prima facie crirnina-l olfence The Clourt observed that rnany acts of cheating occur in th e context of cornrnercial or financial transactions, and such a .,civil profile" croes no t strip the act of i ts ..crirninar outf,it.,, The Court also relerre d. to State of Hargana u. tsttajan Lctl and Rajesh Bajaj u. State (NCT of Delhi), which treld r_hat quashing of .aIRs under Section 482 Cr.p.C. shouid be limited to rarr: and exceptional cases. It ernptras ized that just because a transaction involves a comrnercial or rnonetary elenrent that alone is not a grouncl to rule tut criminal interrt or p-roceedings. Ultimately, the Court concluded tha.- the High Court had erred in quashing _he crirninal proceedings, stressing that crirnina,l cases rnr_rst proceed as per the Cr.p.C. and cannot be halted soiely due to parallel ci,, il litigation, regardless ol the status or authority of the civil forum.

¶125

¶126

For the foregoing^{reasonsas well as the principles laid} d.own by the Hon'ble^{Apex Court as stated supra' this Court} does not find any^{illegality. irregularityorprocedural} irnpropriety warranting^{interference with the orders dated} 30.11.2O16 in Cr1.R.P'No-24^{of 2OL6 and O4'O5'2O15 in} Crl.R.P.No.¹ 1 of^{20 15 passed by the learned Sessions} Jtrdge, confirrning^{the order dated20 'Ol '2015in} Crl.M.P.No.543^{of 2015 passedby the lezrrnedMagistrate or} any ground to^{quash C.C.No.392of 2015 to exercise the} powers conferred trncler^{Sections 482 of the Cr'P'C' and the} sarne is liable to^{be disrnissed.}

¶127

Accordingly,^{the crirninal petition isdisrnissed'} However, the^{presenceof the petitioners/accusedNos'S'} 11, 13 and 2l before^{tkre trial Court in C'C' No'392 of 2015} is dispensed^{with,tlnlesstheir} -^{presence isspecifically} reqr-rired d.uring^{the courseof trial subject to the condition} that the petitioners^{shall represent the rnatter through their} Counsel on^{eactr and everydate of hearing' In case of non-} appearance^{of the petitioners on specifrc date so fixed by} the trial Court,^{the learned trial Court is directed to proceed} with the rnatter in accordance^{wittl iaw'}

¶128

It is rnade clear that^{the trialCourt isdirected to}

¶129

I I t

¶130

¶131

decide C.C.No.392 of 2015 on rrrerits, in accordanct: with law, r-rninfluLenced by any of the observations made in this order as welr as in the impugned orders dated 3o. i.7.2C 16 and 04.OS.2016.

¶132

Miscelianeous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed

¶133

SD/- A,V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR

<br>

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OT:FICER

To,