SHARON MICHAEL AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1412 · Decided: 19-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1412 
SHARON MICHAEL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2089 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 19, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing 
of summons - Scope - Contract for manufacture and supply 
. c· 'Jf garments for export - Accused were employees of the 
company acting as certifying agent in the transaction -
Complaint by supplier that accused did not pay amount 
representing value of the garments exported - Summons 
issued under ss. 1208, 409 and 420 /PC - Application under 
s.482 CrPC. for quashing - Dismissed by High Court - Held: 
D Dispute between parties was civil in nature - Allegations 
made in FIR did not reveal any misrepresentation or criminal 
misconduct on part of accused - Accused did not make any 
representation in their p[3rsonal capacity and, thus, could not 
be held vicariously liable - Summons issued to accused-
E appellants accordingly quashed - Penal Code, 1860 -
ss.409, 420 and 1208. 
Pursuant to a contract between the parties, garments 
were manufactured and supplied by Respondent No.2 for 
export. The foreign (German) buyer, however, did not 
F accept the garments on the premise that the same were 
defective and sub-standard. 
Respondent No. 2 filed complaint alleging that 
appellants, employees of the company acting as 
certifying agent in the transaction, did not pay amount 
G representing value of the garments exported. Summons 
were issued to the appellants under ss.1208, 409 and 420 
IPC. Appellants filed application under s.482 CrPC. for 
quashing of the summons, which was dismissed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
1412 
-
( 
' '
SHARON MICHAEL AND ORS. v. STATE OF TAMIL 
1413 
NADU AND ANR. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD:1.1. Rightly or wrongly, the buyer refused to 
accept the goods, inter alia, on the premise that the same 
were defective and sub-standard. Even if it is assumed 
that the appellant company was assured payment for 
such supplies, it would be a def credere agent. Its liability B 
is, therefore, a civil liability. The allegations contained in 
the First Information Report did not reveal that any 
misrepresentation was made at the time of formation of 
the contract. The goods were presumably required to 
meet the requirements of the buyer. Even if the certificate C 
granted by the a·ppellant company was incorrect, an 
appropriate action against them could have been taken 
for breach of contract. [Para 9] [1421-0-F] 
1.2. Allegations have been made against the 
appellants in relation to execution of the contract. No 0 
case of criminal misconduct on their part has been made 
out before the formation of the contract. There is nothing 
to show that the appellants who hold different positions 
in the appellant-company made any representation in 
their personal capacities and, thus, they cannot be made 
vicariously liable only because they are employees of the E 
company. [Para 11] [1422-E-G] 
1.3. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. 
It is also not a case where although a prima facie case had 
been made out disclosing commission of an offence, the 
court is called upon to consider the defence of the F 
accused. The First Information Report itself refers to the 
documents. They can, therefore, be taken into 
consideration for the purpose of ascertaining as to 
whether the allegations made in the complaint petition 
read as a whole, even if taken to be correct in its entirety, G 
discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. 
The impugned summons issued to. the appellants are 
accordingly quashed. [Paras 12 and13] [1423-G-C] 
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. (2008) 14 SCALE 
H 
1414 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
# 
A 85, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2008) 14 SCALE 85 
referred to 
Para 12 
& 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 2089 of 2008. 
B 
From the final Order dated 2.3.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras in Cirminal O.P. No. 26498 of 2005. 
...
G.V. Rao, P.N. Jha and Devendra Singh for the Appellants. 
" 
V. Kanagaraj, M.A. Chinnasamy, S. Thananjayan, R. 
c Nedumaran and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
« 
2. Appellants are before us being aggrieved by and 
D dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2.3.2006 
passed by a learned Single of the High Court of Judicature at 
Madras in Crimin

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