IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1101/2013 BETWEEN:
MR.MOHAMMED TAHIR @ MOHAMMED BHAI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S D D & SONS, 328, MEHRA BASTI, KARBALA CHOURAHA, RAMGARH MODE, JAIPUR – 302 002, RAJASTHANA STATE.
(BY SRI : N KIRAN, ADVOCATE) AND MRS. B. NASEEMA W/O B M AYUB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, M/S FARAZ ENTERPRISES, 19-6-357/8, 1ST FLOOR, MAJESTIC TOWER, PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE-575001 D K DISTRICT, KARNATAKA STATE.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI : K RANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE ) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN F.I.R.NO.222/2012 FILED IN P.C.NO.77/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SR. C.J. & C.J.M., MANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.222/2012 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
3. The petitioner and the respondent are the traders dealing in dry ginger. The respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the complainant had delivered dry ginger to the petitioner/accused, worth Rs.61 lakhs. Out of the said amount, the accused has paid about Rs.40.80 lakhs. Last payment was made on 28.4.2012 and as on the date of lodging the complaint, the accused was liable to pay Rs.20.20 lakhs. The further allegations made in the complaint in paragraph 3 read as under:
“ III. That the accused after 28.4.2012 has deliberately and also with an intention to dupe the complainant has avoided the payments to the complainant. In this regard complainant has deputed and sent her Manager Mohammed Farooq and also her husband Mr.B.M.Ayub about 8 times to Jaipur to get the payment. But, the accused by giving one or other reasons is made promises to make the payments at the earliest. Even, the accused has confirmed the balance payments on 23.6.2012 in the Statement Accounts of the complainant.”
These allegations on the face of it indicate that the complaint is lodged for non-payment of the amount alleged to have been due to the complainant. The complainant has sought to convert the financial dispute into criminal proceedings. Therefore, solely on this ground, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
4. Even going a step further, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that there was a dispute with regard to delivery of the consignment and the petitioner has produced prima facie document to show that the consignment sent to the petitioner was delivered to the wrong addess, i.e., to another trader and in this regard, the petitioner himself lodged a complaint against the carrier in FIR No.26/2013 and during investigation, it is ascertained that the consignment was received by said trader. Even on this ground also, the allegations made against the petitioner that there was a shortfall of the amount due to the complainant in respect of supply of dry ginger falls to the ground.
5. Notwithstanding the above contention, the dispute raised by the complainant being purely civil in nature, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences is only illegal and abuse of process of court. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract any of the ingredients of the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.
For all these reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings registered against the petitioner in FIR in Crime No.222/2012 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.