Summary
After a pharmaceutical company ended its carrying and forwarding agency, it sued the agent in the Bombay High Court and filed a criminal complaint against it. The agent then filed a private complaint, which the Patna Magistrate forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC. An FIR followed, and later a charge-sheet. The Patna High Court dismissed the company's quashing petition under Section 482 because a charge-sheet had been filed. The Court held that the complaint, even if wholly true, disclosed only a broken commercial relationship and none of the offences alleged. Where proceedings arise from a private complaint, the complainant cannot enlarge it through the charge-sheet or by using penal language. The complaint was also a counterblast to the company's suit and complaint. The FIR and charge-sheet were quashed.
Issues
- Whether a private complaint by a former carrying and forwarding agent disclosed any offence, so that the FIR and charge-sheet arising from it should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court could dismiss the quashing petition merely because a charge-sheet had been filed, ignoring a pending application to bring it on record and challenge it.
Provisions considered
- Sections 156(3), 200 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Where the proceedings rest on a private complaint referred to the police under Section 156(3), the complaint must itself disclose an offence. As it disclosed none, the FIR and charge-sheet were quashed under Section 482. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 18, 19)
- Sections 406, 420, 384, 471 and 120-B among others, Indian Penal Code, 1860Even taking all its averments as true, the complaint made out none of the ingredients of the offences alleged. (¶¶ 7, 14)
Held
- Read carefully, the complaint described a commercial relationship that broke down, over godown custody, service charges, a bank guarantee and furniture left in the godown. Even taking every averment as true, it disclosed none of the ingredients of the offences alleged. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- Because the case emanated from a private complaint under Section 200 later referred to the police, the complainant could not enlarge its scope through the final report and witness statements. Nor could it do so by adding the language of the Indian Penal Code to a complaint disclosing only a commercial dispute. (¶ 15)
- The complaint was filed only after the company had sued the agent and lodged its own criminal complaint, which showed its character as a counterblast. (¶ 16)
- The High Court erred in dismissing the petition merely because a charge-sheet had been filed. It overlooked the pending application to bring the charge-sheet on record and include a prayer to quash it. Where no offence is made out on a careful reading of the complaint, it deserves to be quashed. (¶¶ 9, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's order is set aside and the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellants are quashed; no order as to costs.