Full Judgment Text
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2139 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9348 of 2013)
M/s. Sesami Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Others … Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2140 OF 2014
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5317 of 2014)
M/s. Sesami Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Another … Appellants
Versus
Sanjay Kabra & Another … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Chelameswar, J.
1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.
Signature Not Verified
rising out of SLP (Criminal) No.9348 of 2013
Criminal Appeal a
Digitally signed by
Deepak Mansukhani
Date: 2014.09.27
12:07:21 IST
Reason:
2. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court of
1
Meghalaya dated 21.5.2013 in Criminal Petition (SH) No.68 of 2011,
the fourth respondent therein has preferred the instant appeal.
3. The abovementioned criminal petition was filed by respondents
No.2 and 3 herein (for short “contesting respondents/accused”)
praying in substance to quash the First Information Report (FIR)
dated 12.10.2011 in Umiam Police Station Case No.43(10) of 2011
(G.R. No.185 of 2011) under Sections 120-B/418/520 IPC.
4. At the outset, we may mention that all the facts are disputed
barring the following.
5. That, the appellant company is engaged in the business of
manufacturing ferrosilicon. It appears that pursuant to an agreement
between the appellant company and the contesting
respondents/accused, the appellant sold a huge quantity of
ferrosilicon (the details of which are not available on record) to the
contesting respondents/accused and dispatched four consignments of
ferrosilicon valued at Rs.46,79,890/- out of which the contesting
respondents/accused paid amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the balance
amount of Rs.36,79,890/- was outstanding.
6. On 12.10.2011, FIR No.43(10) of 2011 under Sections
120-B/418/520 IPC, which is the subject matter of present case,
2
came to be registered at Umiam police station at the instance of the
appellant herein.
7. On 31.10.2011, the learned Additional District Magistrate,
Nongpoh Court issued non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against the
contesting respondents/accused.
8. The rest of the facts are in dispute. According to the appellant,
after coming to know of the registration of the abovementioned case,
the contesting respondents/accused entered into a compromise with
the appellant and agreed to make payment of an amount of
Rs.71,34,489/- towards the balance of the price of the material
purchased by them along with the interest accrued on such delayed
payment.
9. It is the case of the appellant that on 3.11.2011, the contesting
respondents/accused made payment of Rs.40,00,000/- and for the
balance amount of Rs.31,34,489/-, an account payee cheque was
issued. The said cheque was entrusted by the appellant to its banker
for collection and on presentation to the payee banker the same was
returned with an endorsement “Payment Stopped by the Drawer”.
10. In the meanwhile, the contesting respondents/accused filed the
abovementioned criminal petition No.68 of 2011. During the
3
pendency of the said matter, in view of the dishonoured cheque
mentioned above, the appellant initiated another criminal proceeding
in crime case No.87(S)/2012 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Shillong.
11. By impugned judgment, the abovementioned criminal petition
No.68 of 2011 came to be allowed quashing the first of the
abovementioned two FIRs i.e. Case No.43(10) of 2011 dated
12.10.2011.
12. The case of the contesting respondents/accused is as follows.
13. The contesting respondents/accused admit the fact that on
02.3.2008 they purchased ferrosilicon worth Rs.46,79,890/- from the
appellant company and paid Rs.10,00,000/-. On receipt of the goods,
they found that the goods were substandard and informed the same
to the appellant and demanded their money back.
14. According to the contesting respondents/accused, the appellant
initially agreed to return their money and to take back its goods but
later the appellant instructed the accused to sell off the goods in the
open market and appropriate the same. But subsequently the
signatures of the contesting respondents/accused were taken on
certain blank papers at gun point at the instance of the appellant.
4
The cheque which is the subject matter of crime case No.87(S)/2012
is one such document obtained at gun point.
15. It is in the background of the abovementioned disputed question
of fact, the learned Judge of the High Court thought it fit to quash the
FIRs i.e. Case No.43(10) of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 with a cryptic
order. The only relevant portion for the present purpose reads as
follows:
“After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel at
Bar, considering the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the
considered view that, the matter of disputes is purely covered by civil
law and not by criminal law, therefore, I do not see any reason that
FIR dated 12.10.11 has any stand in the eye of law, so it needs to be
quashed.”
16. We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the contesting
respondents under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 is an abuse of the process of the Court. As already noticed, the
facts are seriously in dispute. The truth or otherwise of such facts
can only be established by evidence at the trial. We are, therefore, of
the opinion that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR No.43(10)
of 2011 dated 12.10.2011. We, therefore, set aside the order of the
High Court. The first respondent is directed to proceed with the FIR
No.43(10) of 2011 dated 12.10.2011 in accordance with law.
17. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
5
Criminal Appeal a rising out of SLP (Criminal) No.5317 of 2014
18. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court,
Shillong Bench dated 14.9.2012 in Criminal Petition (SH) No.40 of
2012 by which the High Court quashed the proceedings in case
No.87(S)/2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, respondents no.1 and 2 therein have preferred the instant
appeal.
19. The parties are the same as in the earlier appeal. The facts are
interconnected and highly contested. Therefore, we are of the opinion
that the High Court erred in quashing the case. We, therefore, set
aside the impugned order and direct the case No.87(S)/2012 to be
proceeded with in accordance with law.
20. Both the appeals are allowed accordingly.
…………………………. J .
(J. Chelameswar)
……………………..…. J .
(A.K. Sikri)
New Delhi;
September 26, 2014.
6
ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Crl. Appeal No. 2139 of 2014
(Arising out of Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s). 9348/2013)
M/S SESAMI CHEMICALS P.LTD.REP.BY DIRCTR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
Crl. Appeal No. 2140 of 2014 @ SLP(Crl) No. 5317/2014
Date : 26/09/2014 These appeals were called on for pronouncement
of judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Debjani Das P., Adv.
Ms. Anu Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Madhurima Tatia,Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar pronounced
the judgment of the Bench comprising of His Lordship and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.
Leave granted in both the SLPs.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
non reportable judgment.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
7
8