Jai Bardhan vs. State Of West Bengal And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Jai Bardhan, filed a revisional application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash a complaint case (Complaint Case No. 2274 of 2021) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat. The complaint was filed by a de facto complainant alleging offences under Sections 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant had booked a CT scanner machine for Rs. 28,00,000/- (inclusive of GST) and paid Rs. 16,00,000/- to Edge Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through its CEO, the petitioner. The machine supplied was allegedly defective and non-functioning. The petitioner contended that he was not connected with the company in any capacity, had not received the amount, and was falsely implicated. He provided master data of the company to show his lack of involvement.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner had merit to interfere with the proceedings. Upon perusal of the company's master data, the Court found that the petitioner was not connected with Edge Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. as a director, signatory, or CEO. The allegations concerning the supply of a defective machine and part payment for it were deemed to be civil disputes and did not constitute criminal acts. The Court found no ingredients for offences punishable under Sections 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, nor was any cognizable offence disclosed against the petitioner. The Court applied categories 1 and 6 from the Bhajanlal Case, concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the complaint case against the petitioner and set aside the orders passed by the court below. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code are an abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's alleged lack of connection with the company and the nature of the dispute. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was entirely innocent and had no role or connection with Edge Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd., nor did he receive any payment. He presented company master data indicating he was neither a director, signatory, nor CEO. The petitioner contended that the dispute regarding the supply of a defective machine and part payment was essentially a civil dispute that the complainant was attempting to convert into a criminal case, which is impermissible. He argued that the complainant's grievances could be addressed before a consumer forum. Therefore, quashing the proceedings was necessary to secure the ends of justice. Revenue/State's Arguments: No arguments were recorded on behalf of the State or the de facto complainant, as no one appeared for the opposite party no. 2, and no accommodation was sought.
Sections Cited
Section 482, Section 401, Section 323, Section 406, Section 420
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
08-08-2024 ct no. 32 Sl. 10 sp
C.R.R. 2927 of 2022 With CRAN 6 of 2024 Jai Bardhan -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Mr. Avirup Mondal, Ms. Ahana Ghosh Mondal ..for the petitioner
Affidavit of service filed on behalf the petitioner is taken on record.
In spite of service, no one appears on behalf of the de facto complainant/opposite party no. 2. 3. No accommodation is sought for at the time of call.
By filing this revisional application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner herein has prayed for quashing of the complaint case being Complaint Case No. 2274 of 2021 under Sections 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas.
The essential facts of the instant case are as follows: The de facto complainant booked a SIEMENS (refurbished) EMOTION SINGLE SLICE CT SCANNER MACHINE for a total consideration of Rs. 28,00,000/- which is inclusive of GST @ 12% amounting to Rs.
3,00,000/-. Out of the said total amount, the de facto complainant made a part payment to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- to the company, Edge Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd through the CEO, the accused petitioner herein.
It is further alleged that in spite of payment of Rs. 16,00,000/-, the accused persons failed to supply the machine to the complainant. Despite several requests and assurance given by the company that they will deliver the machine within 15 days but failed. Subsequently, the accused persons have delivered the said machine to the complainant but same was defective and non-functioning. The complainant did not install nor rectify or replace the same as such a complaint has been filed by the complainant before the Learned court below under Section 200 of the CrPC. On the basis of the said court complaint and examining of the witness, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24 Parganas took cognizance against the petitioners and issued summons against them.
After receiving summon, the present petitioner appeared before the learned Court below and obtained bail. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is no way connected with the company in any capacity. He never received such amount. The question of involvement in the instant case does not arise. It is further contended that the petitioner has been falsely 2
implicated into the case without any involvement. Petitioner has filed the master data of the said company along with original application to show the petitioner is no way connected with the company. Finally, he prays for quashing of the said proceeding as the proceeding if continued then it would be a sheer abuse of process of law. As such, the petitioner approached before this Court seeking aforesaid relief.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is totally innocent and he is no way connected with the instant case since he has no role to play in the company in any capacity. However, he has been implicated in the instant case falsely. Petitioner also shown the master data of the company wherefrom it appears that Mr. Prakash Vardhan was a director/signatory of the company from 23rd April, 2018 to 5th July, 2019. Petitioner is neither a director nor signatory or CEO of the said company.
It is further submitted that the case of the de facto complainant with regards to the supply of the defective machine, which amount to civil disputes but the defecto complainant tried to convert it into the criminal case though it is not permissible in law. At best the complainant can seek his grievances before the consumer forum. As such, the instant case liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice. 3
Heard the learned counsel and on perusal of the documents appended with the application, this Court finds from the master data of the company that he is no way connected with the company. He is neither a director nor signatory or CEO of the company, namely, Edge Medical Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The allegation of the complainant is with regards to a defect machine was supplied and the same was not replaced by other workable machine, i.e., SIEMENS (refurbished) EMOTION SINGLE SLICE CT SCANNER MACHINE nor the machine was returned. Disputes regarding supply of defective machine or part payment of 16,00,000/= out of Rs. 28,00,000= for the said machine does not fall within the criminal act. Moreover, there is no ingredient found against the offence punishable under Sections 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. No cognizable offence disclosed against the Petitioner. Furthermore, from the perusal of the entire complaint, this Court does not find any sufficient material with regards to the allegation punishable under Section 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of the above facts, categories as stipulated in Sl. No. 1 and 6 in Bhajanlal Case (supra)1 in paragraph 102 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment are squarely applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, the case of the petitioner has merit to interfere with the proceeding. The High Court is not powerless to utilize 1 AIR 1992 SC 604, 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335 4
the inherent juri iction to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is, thus, allowed. Connected application, if any, is also, thus disposed of.
In the light of the above observations, complaint case being Complaint Case No. 2274 of 2021 under Sections 323/406/420 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, North 24, parganas stands quashed in respect petitioner. The orders passed in the said proceeding by the Court below are also set aside.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned Court below for information.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
5
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.