High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sudhir Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL REVISION No. 271 of 2007  RD-AH 1899 (6 February 2007)
Court No. 41
Criminal Revision No. 271 of 2007
Sudhir Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
This revision has been filed by Sudhir Kumar the informant against the order dated 14.11.2006 passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra in Misc. Case No. 341 of 2006 whereby he dismissed the protest petition filed by the informant against the final report submitted in the matter by the Investigating Officer.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the opposite party no. 2 to 9 and the learned Magistrate directed for registration and investigation of the case. According to the allegation as made in the application, the informant/revisionist who is an advocate, was allured by the accused persons for issuing the franchise for his son for Savi International Company Uro Aqua Brand. This company was manufacturing the mineral water and had a network to supply the same in different cities in the country. It also had the office at 28 F/112, Jyoti Block, Sanjay Palace, Agra with a Head Office in D-177 Sector 27 Noida, U.P. The accused nos 6 and 8 were already known to the informant and he came to believe the assurance as given by the other accused persons. He was also assured that there would be sufficient profits in the business and the informant thinking that his son would be settled in the self business, executed an agreement and paid Rs. 5 lacs as security deposit and also paid Rs. 70,000/-. Accused had assured that he would have an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The company also assured that he could start his work within 15 days from 16.10.2004. However, the accused did not fulfil their promise and when contacted by the informant they sought further time on one pretext or the other. Finally after the lapse of 15 months when the informant demanded his money back, he was threatened with dire consequences. In the circumstances, he moved the application.
The investigating Officer interrogated the informant and other witnesses and as per record also inspected the alleged office in Sanjay Palace along with informant but he could not find the office there. He was also told by the witnesses that there was no office in the name and style as claimed by the informant. After investigation, he submitted final report in the matter. Against that final report the petitioner filed protest petition in the Court of the learned Magistrate along with his own affidavit and the affidavit of the witnesses and contended that the Investigating Officer had not made proper investigation and had not even recorded his statement and the statement of the witness and had also not inspected the place where the office of the accused persons was situate.
Learned Magistrate by the impugned order has held that the proper investigation has been made and that there appears to be some agreement between the parties and he did not find any ground to accept the protest petition and consequently rejected the same and feeling aggrieved this revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the accused persons have cheated the informant/revisionist and learned Magistrate should have either proceeded in the matter as complaint case or should have directed for further investigation but he has erred in rejecting the protest petition and accepting the final report. Learned A.G.A. has contended that the dispute in the matter is of civil nature and the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the protest petition.
The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and the copy of the agreement as entered into between the accused and the informant is paper 46/47. It shows that the informant was required to deposit Rs. 5 Lacs as security money against the stock and he was also assured that minimum sale guarantee per month would be Rs. 5 Lacs. In this agreement there is an arbitration clause whereby both the parties agreed that in case of any dispute under this agreement they shall settle the same mutually and in case of failure an arbitrator shall be appointed with the consent of both the parties who shall decide the dispute of both the parties. It appears that the informant instead of seeking an arbitration preferred an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The allegations as contained in the first information report (application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) show that a franchise was to be given to the son of the applicant by the opposite party and in that connection an agreement was executed between the parties. Therefore the dispute was of civil nature and the petitioner should have sought arbitration in the matter, if they had failed to settle the dispute mutually.
In the circumstances, there is no criminal liability of the accused in the matter and the learned Magistrate rightly rejected the protest petition and this revision is devoid of any merits and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.