MAHESH CHOUDHARY versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 1005 · Decided: 03-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 3 S.C.R. 1005 
;t-. 
MAHESH CHOUDHARY 
A 
-
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 417 of 2009) 
MARCH 3, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] 
• 
1 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S.482 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Power of c 
High Court - Discussed - The question involved in the 
present case is essentially a civil dispute - Case for imposing 
criminal liability not made out - In view of the peculiar facts 
'· 
and circumstances of the case and in order to do complete 
... 
justice, certain directions issued - Constitution of India, Article 
f 
D 
142. 
The firm in which the appellant was a partner, entered 
into an agreement with another firm whereby the latter 
firm was to receive 10% commission on the invoice value 
of each and every invoice and total sales made directly 
E 
or indirectly by the firm. Alleging that the appellant has 
.l. 
committed the offences of criminal breach of trust and/ 
or of cheating and forgery by not paying commission to 
the firm on the sale of about Rs.9 crores through a sister 
concern, a Complaint Petition was filed. The Magistrate 
F 
• 
directed the Police to lodge FIR, and it was lodged. The 
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against the 
appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed an application 
before the High Court for quashing of the order passed 
by the Magistrate. It was dismissed. Hence the appeal. 
G 
~ ' 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Indisputably, the question as to whether the 
complainant was entitled to a higher amount of 
H 
1005 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A commission in terms of the agreement dated 21.2.1973 is 
essentially a civil dispute. The complainant in terms of the 
said agreement was not only entitled to inspect the 
documents maintained by the accused but also to get the 
same audited. It is, therefore, difficult to hold as has 
B rightly been opined by the Investigating Officer that a 
case for imposing a criminal liability on the accused on 
that score has been made out. While saying so, this Court 
is not unmindful of the limitations of the court's power 
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
c which is primarily for one either to prevent abuse of the 
process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of 
justice. The court at that stage would not embark upon 
appreciation of evidence. The Court shall moreover 
corisider the materials on record as a whole. [Para 15] 
D [1012-H; 1013-A-C] 
E 
Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of WB. & Ors. (2002) 1 
SCC 555; B.Suresh Yadav vs. Sharifa Bee & anr. (2007) 13 
SCC 107 and R. Ka/yani vs. Janak C. Mehta & ors. 2008 (14) 
SCALE 85, referred to. 
2. The charge-sheet, prima facie discloses 
commission of offences. A fair investigation was carried 
out by the Investigating Officer. The charge-sheet is a 
detailed one. If an order of cognizance has been passed 
F relying on or on the basis thereof by the Magistrate, no 
exception thereto can be taken. This Court does.not find 
any legal infirmity in the impugned orders. [Para 16] (1015-
E-F] 
3. Before this Court, it was stated that the appellant 
G is ready and willing to get the disputes and differences 
between the parties settled. In that view of the matter and 
keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of 
this case and with a view to do complete justice to the 
parties, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the 
H Constitution of India, it is directed that in the event the 
--
--
MAHESH CHOUDHARY v. STATE OF 
1007 
RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
rt 
appellant appears before the Magistrate within a period 
A 
of four weeks and files an application for grant of bail, he 
shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions 
as the Magistrate may deem fit and proper. In the event, 
the appellant files an application for exemption from his 
personal appearance, the same may also be considered 
B 
on its own merits. It would be open to the complainant 
to consider the offer of the appellant. [Para 17] [1015-G-
-I 
H; 1016-A-B] 
t 
Case Law Reference: 
(2002) 1 sec 555 
(2001) 13 sec 101 
2008 (14) SCALE 85 
referred to 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 15 
Para 15 
Para 15 
c 
D 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 417 of 2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.10.07 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in 
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 178 of 2007. 
E 
Jagdeep Dhankar, Sunil Kumar and Aneesh Mitt

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.