Court No. - 28
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1404 of 2008 Applicant :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Mathura Refinery Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani K. Misra,Ankush Tandon,Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Krishna Mohan
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Learned counsel for applicant is permitted to renumber the opposite parties in the cause title during course of the day.
Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ankur Tandon, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for complainant-opposite party No. 1. Zila Panchayat, Mathura, through its Adhyaksha.
This application under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed challenging summoning order dated 28.06.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in Criminal Case No. 2447 of 2001 (Zila Panchayat Vs. Indian Oil Corporation), under section 240 Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, as well as entire proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case.
Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ankur Tandon, learned counsel for applicant in support of this application submits that opposite party No. 1 Zila Panchayat Parishad has framed its bye laws in accordance with the provisions of Section 239 (2) of U.P. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1961). A challan under Section 240 of 1961 was filed for initiation of criminal proceedings against General Manager of Mathura Refinery on account of violation of bye laws of Zila Panchayat, Mathura as no licence was obtained by Mathura Refinery from Zila Panchayat Mathura for establishing Mathura Refinery. After filing of aforesaid challan dated 22.3.1996, applicant has been summoned, vide summoning order dated 30.3.1996 passed by C.J.M., Mathura.
Thus feeling aggrieved by aforesaid summoning order as well as entire proceedings of above mentioned criminal case, applicant has now filed present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Ankur Tandon, learned counsel for applicant submits that Zila Panchayat Mathura has itself filed Original Suit No. 413 of 2014 (Zila Parishad Vs. Indian Oil Corporation) for a decree of declaration delcaring that plaintiff is entitled to recover the licence fee from defendant in accordance with the bye-laws of Zila Parishad, Mathura published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated 25.11.89 and consequently the defendant be directed by mandatory injunction to pay licence fee to the plaintiff in accordance with the bye-laws so published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette.
On the aforesaid factual premise, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ankur Tandon, learned counsel for applicant submits that since the issue whether complainant has right to recover licence fee from applicant is still subjudice before Civil Court by way of above mentioned Original Suit, then filing of complaint against applicant and amounts to abuse of process of Court. Placing reliance upon judgement of Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2007 (12) SCC, 1, he submits that a purely civil litigation has been dragged into criminal litigation and further no offence under Section 240 of Act, 1961, can be said to be committed by the present applicant.
Mr. Krishna Mohan, learned counsel appearing for complainant-opposite party No. 1 in opposition to the submission made by learned Senior counsel submits that irrespective of pendency of above mentioned Original Suit, criminal proceedings can be initiated against applicant. Once bye laws have been framed by Zila Parishad, Mathura, present applicant is under legal obligation to comply with the same. Pendency of civil suit filed by complainant himself will not make any difference. He thus concludes that present application is liable to be dismissed.
Perusal of judgement of Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) clearly goes to show that civil dispute cannot be dragged into criminal litigation. Right of complainant opposite party No. 1 to recover licence fee from applicant is still subjudice before Civil Court is available or not. As long as above mentioned Original Suit is not decided, the right of complainant to recover licence fee from applicant has not crystallized into a valuable right of complainant. Consequently, observations made by Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) are clearly attracted in present case. Once the right of complainant to recover licence fee from applicant is still subjudice, no offence can be said to be committed by applicant by not depositing licence fee.
Above being the factual position, it cannot be said that applicant has committed any offence punishable under Section 240 of Act, 1961.
In view of above, present application succeeds and is allowed.
Impugned summoning order dated 28.06.1995 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, in Criminal Case No. 2447 of 2001 (Zila Panchayat Vs. Indian Oil Corporation), under section 240 Zila Panchayat Act, 1961, as well as entire proceedings of the above mentioned criminal case, is, hereby, quashed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2019 HSM