Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1224 OF 2022
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10730 OF 2018)
WYETH LIMITED & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
Leave granted.
| 2. | Aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of |
|---|
Judicature at Patna dismissing a petition under Section 482 of
| the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “ | Cr.P.C” | ) for |
|---|
quashing an FIR registered at the instance of the second
respondent herein, the appellants have come up with the above
appeal.
| 3.<br>ture N | ot Verified | Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the |
|---|---|---|
| y signed by<br>HAN KUMAR<br>A | ||
| 1a0 72 I2 S.pT08.24pellants, the learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar<br>n: |
2
and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.2, who was the complainant.
| 4. | The respondent No.2 was engaged by appellant no.1 as its |
|---|
Carrying and Forwarding agent (C&F), on certain terms and
conditions, reduced into writing. The agreement continued from
time to time until February2012.
| 5. | Thereafter disputes arose between appellant No.1 and |
|---|
respondent No.2 which led to appellant No.1 filing a civil suit on
the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in CS
No.1432 of 2012. In the said suit, the High Court passed an
order appointing a Court Receiver to take possession of the goods
including medicines belonging to appellant No.1, which were in
the possession of respondent no.2. The Court Receiver seems to
have executed the warrant and recovered possession of certain
goods, the details of which are not relevant for our present
purpose.
| 6. | Apart from filing a civil suit, appellant No.1 also filed a |
|---|
criminal complaint against respondent No.2 for alleged offences
under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. By an order dated 14.08.2013,
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance and
issued summons to respondent No.2.
3
| 7. | Thereafter respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint before |
|---|
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. On 12.12.2013, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna passed an order
directing the copy of the complaint to be forwarded to the
Patliputra Police Station, for registration of an FIR against the
appellants herein. Pursuant to the said order, the Patliputra
Police Station registered an FIR in Crime No.17 of 2014 on
07.01.2014, against the appellants herein, for alleged offences
under Sections 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384, 311, 193, 196 read
with Section 120B IPC.
| 8. | Challenging the FIR so registered, the appellants filed a |
|---|
petition in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.13742 of 2014 on
the file of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, under Section
482 Cr.P.C seeking the quashing of the same. When the said
petition came up for final hearing in the year 2018, the Court
was informed that the police had already filed a chargesheet and
that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the
same.
| 9. | In the light of the subsequent development as aforesaid, the |
|---|
High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the quash petition
on the only ground that it was not proper to keep the matter
4
pending any further. The High Court did not choose to go into
the merits of the contentions, despite the fact that appellant No.1
moved an application in IA No.1015 of 2014 for bringing on
record the chargesheet and also for inclusion of a prayer for
quashing the chargesheet.
| 10. | Aggrieved by such a disposal of their quash petition, the |
|---|
appellants are before this Court.
| 11. | The primary contention of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. |
|---|
Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
| is: | (i | ) that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 does not |
|---|
| disclose the commission of any offence; | (ii) | that the complaint |
|---|
filed by respondent No.2 was only a counter blast to the civil suit
filed by appellant No.1 and a criminal complaint lodged by the
| appellants against respondent No.2; | (iii) | that the High Court |
|---|
overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing on record
the chargesheet and for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing of
the chargesheet.
| 12. | In response, it is contended by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned |
|---|
senior counsel for respondent No.2 that though the appellants
moved an application for bringing on record the subsequent
5
development of filing of the chargesheet and also for inclusion of
a prayer for quashing the chargesheet, the appellants were
negligent in not pressing for the same at the time of hearing of
the quash petition. According to the learned senior counsel for
respondent No.2, the appellants sought adjournment on several
occasions, without pressing for an order in the Interlocutory
Application and that therefore the Court found it not proper to
keep the quash petition pending, impeding the trial.
| 13. | Before going into rival contentions, it would be appropriate |
|---|
to have a look at the criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2
on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Section
200 Cr.P.C, which formed the foundation for the Magistrate
passing an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the registration of
the FIR by the police and the filing of the chargesheet. In sum
and substance, what was alleged in the said complaint was as
follows:
| (i) | that respondent No.2 is a Clearing and Forwarding |
|---|
agent for different pharmaceutical companies;
| (ii) | that appellant No.1 hired the services of respondent |
|---|
No.2 as its Clearing and Forwarding agent to carry
out various tasks including the storage of medicines
in the godown, distribution of the same and
corresponding with the Government.
6
| (iii) | that appellant No.1 acquired another company |
|---|
which had taken on rent, a godown situate in the
campus of Patna
Cold Storage Private Limited;
| (iv) | that at the instance of the appellants, respondent |
|---|
No.2 provided manpower for the distribution of the
products of appellant No.1 and they worked under
the supervision of the managerial staff of appellant
No.1;
| (v) | that certain service charges were payable to |
|---|
respondent No.2 for the services so rendered;
| (vi) | that in the meantime the rental agreement for the |
|---|
godown expired and hence respondent No.2 was not
allowed to store the drugs in the godown;
| (vii) | that on account of the same, the agreement |
|---|
executed by appellant No.1 in favour of respondent
No.2 became inoperative;
| (viii) | that through a supplementary agreement dated |
|---|
26.11.2004, new conditions were incorporated;
| (ix) | that at the time of execution of the supplementary |
|---|
agreement, it was assured that on and from
1.04.2005, respondent no.2 will be entitled to get
the entire work handed over to them by having the
custody of the godown;
| (x) | that the appellant No.1 also took a bank guarantee |
|---|
from respondent no.2 in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/
| (xi) | that without any prior intimation to respondent |
|---|
no.2, the appellants locked up the godown in 2012.
7
| (xii) | that respondent No.2 came to know about a new |
|---|
warehousing agreement entered into by appellant
No.1 behind the back of respondent No.2;
| (xiii) | that whenever respondent No.2 raised a question of |
|---|
execution of power of attorney in their favour, the
appellants threatened to terminate the agency,
forcing the respondent No.2 to part with
Rs.2,00,000/per annum;
| (xiv) | that due to the nonexecution of the power of |
|---|
attorney from 2004 till 2012, respondent No.2 could
not act as C&F agent;
| (xv) | that the appellants made use of the furniture and |
|---|
fixtures belonging to respondent No.2 kept in the
godown.
| (xvi) | that for appointing them as C&F agent, the |
|---|
appellants demanded Rs.12 lakhs, but respondent
No.2 refused to pay;
| (xvii) | that on 28.02.2012, the Regional Distribution |
|---|
Manager of appellant No.1 locked the godown and
relieved respondent No.2.
| (xviii) | that the furniture and fixtures of respondent No.2 |
|---|
are still inside the godown; and
| (xix) | that all the above acts showed that the appellants |
|---|
conspired together and committed the offences of
cheating, forgery and breach of trust.
| 14. | A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which we have |
|---|
extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any of
8
the offences complained against the appellants are made out.
Even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to
be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against
the appellants. Therefore, we do not know how an FIR was
registered and a chargesheet was also filed.
| 15. | The contention of the learned senior counsel for respondent |
|---|
No.2 that the Court has to take note of the final report filed by
the police along with the statement of witnesses, could have been
accepted by us, if the whole thing had emanated from a First
Information lodged with the police. Respondent No.2 actually
filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, which was
referred by the Court under Section 156(3) to the police. When
this complaint itself disclosed nothing more than a commercial
relationship which broke, it is not possible for respondent No.2 to
enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language
used in the text of the Indian Penal Code.
| 16. | Admittedly appellant No.1 had instituted a civil Suit on the |
|---|
file of the judicature at Bombay and also obtained an order for
the appointment of a Court Receiver to take possession of the
goods lying in the godown. The appellants have also lodged a
criminal complaint, which was refused to be quashed by the High
9
Court of Patna. It is only after the appellants filed a civil suit and
a criminal complaint that respondent No.2 chose to file his
complaint.
| 17. | The High Court was clearly in error in overlooking the |
|---|
application for bringing on record the subsequent development of
the filing of the chargesheet and the prayer for inclusion of the
relief of quashing of the chargesheet in the original petition.
| 18. | It is too late in the day to seek support from any precedents, |
|---|
for the proposition that if no offence is made out by a careful
reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed.
| 19. | Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the |
|---|
High Court is set aside and the FIR and the chargesheet against
the appellants are quashed. There will be no order to costs.
…………………………….J.
(Indira Banerjee)
…………………………….J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
August 11, 2022.
10
ITEM NO. 2/1 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10730/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-05-2018
in CRM No. 13742/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna)
WYETH LIMITED & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.172304/2018-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.172302/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST
OF DATES and IA No.172306/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 11-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Samir Rohatgi, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.
Ms. Somya Shree, Adv.
Mr. Azmat Amanullah, Adv.
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR
Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. shaurya Lamba, Adv.
Mr. Akash Bhuyan, Adv.
Mr. Rushte Saluja, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR
11
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
| The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the FIR |
|---|
and the charge-sheet against the appellants are quashed. There
will be no order to costs.
| Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. |
|---|
(MANISH ISSRANI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
12
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10730/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-05-2018
in CRM No. 13742/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna)
WYETH LIMITED & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.172304/2018-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T. and IA No.172302/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST
OF DATES and IA No.172306/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 11-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Samir Rohatgi, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.
Ms. Somya Shree, Adv.
Mr. Azmat Amanullah, Adv.
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR
Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. shaurya Lamba, Adv.
Mr. Akash Bhuyan, Adv.
Mr. Rushte Saluja, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR
13
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed.
Reasons to follow.
(MANISH ISSRANI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)