Mr.N.S.Rama Rao vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of ... on 19 December, 2008

    In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

Dated: 19.12.2008

Coram:

The Honourable Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

Crl.O.P.No.6916 of 2005

and

Crl.M.P.No.2602 of 2005

Mr.N.S.Rama Rao ... Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by the Inspector of Police,

Central Crime Branch, Team No.11,

Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondent

 Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash
the F.I.R. registered in Crime No.541 of 2001, on the file of the respondent.

 For Petitioners .. Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian

 For Respondent .. Mr.J.Paul Noble Devakumar, G.A.

*****

O R D E R

  The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and he filed this Criminal Original
Petition to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.541 of 2001 registered against him by
the respondents for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 403,
411, 414, 420 and 424 of IPC.

 2. In the F.I.R, the defacto complainant viz., S.Srinivasan, Director of
Kilburn Electricals Ltd., Chennai-12, alleged among other things that one
S.Suryanarayanan, who was employed by the complainant as a Development Manager,
said to have taken out the design drawings and sample components with regard to
the manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers etc. which was developed by the
complainant and after joining the services of the N.S.Rama Rao Body Works,
Chennai-32, he used the said drawings etc., and manufactured the said product
and marketed them also and thereby caused loss to the complainants company.

 3. Heard Mr.M.Aravind Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and Mr.J.Paul Noble Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that on
an earlier occasion, the same complainant has given complaint against
S.Suryanarayanan to the respondent herein who registered a case in X Crime
No.1101/97 under Section 408 of IPC. The respondent after investigation has
filed a final report on 16.4.2001 closing the case and the protest petition
filed by the defacto complainant was also dismissed. Hence the present F.I.R
itself verbatim production of the earlier F.I.R amounts to second F.I.R and the
same is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that the allegations made in the F.I.R do not
constitute commission of offence and that the petitioner herein has not been
specially implicated for the alleged commission of the offence. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following
judgments. 1.(1989)4 SCC 59 - State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs.
R.K.Srivastava and another.

2.(2006)6 SCC 736 - Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others.

3.2007 SCCL.COM.1042 - Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of Uttaranchal &
Others.

4.2008 AIR SCW 4634 - V.R.Dalal & Ors., vs. Yogendra Naranji Thakkar & Anr.

 5. In (1989)4 SCC 59 - State of U.P. Through CBI SPE, Lucknow vs.
R.K.Srivastava and another, on the facts of the case it was held that the
allegations made in the F.I.R do not constitute any offence of cheating or
forgery and as such the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court.

 6. In (2006)6 SCC 736 - Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others, the
principle relating to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to quash the complaints and Criminal Proceedings are enunciated, which are as
follows: "(i) A complainant can be quashed where the allegations made in the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged
against the accused. For this purpose, the complainant has to be examined as a
whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed
inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the
reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted
while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be
quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the
criminal proceedings is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for
wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and
inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to
stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly
and with abundant caution.

 (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients
of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the
complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in
detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is
warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which
are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts
may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c)
a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a
contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy
in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a
civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that
the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for
which a civil remedy is available or has been availed of, is not by itself a
ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in
the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not."

 7. In 2007 SCCL.COM.1042 - Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Others, a civil suit was already instituted and thereafter
criminal proceedings came to be launched and the Honble Supreme Court held that
the same would amount to abuse of process of Court.

 8. In 2008 AIR SCW 4634 - V.R.Dalal & Ors., vs. Yogendra Naranji Thakkar &
Anr., it has been held that the dispute between the parties are purely civil in
nature and allowing of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process
of court and therefore the criminal proceedings were quashed in the said
decision.

 9. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the ratio laid down in the above said decisions is squarely
applicable to the facts of the case and therefore the F.I.R is liable to be
quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

 10. Per contra, Mr.J.Paul Noble Devakumar, learned Government Advocate
(Crl.side) would contend that investigation is at the threshold and it is not
open to the petitioner to suspect the genuineness of the prosecution at this
stage. The truth and veracity of the complaint can be found out only after
collection of materials during investigation and therefore the present O.P. is
liable to be dismissed.

 11. The learned Government Advocate brought to the knowledge of the Court that
earlier the firm viz., N.S.Rama Rao Body Works has filed a quash petition in
Crl.O.P.16932 of 2002 and it was dismissed and therefore, the present Crl.O.P.
also liable to be dismissed.

 12. The court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and also perused
the materials available on record in the form of typed set of documents filed by
the petitioner.

 13. The defacto complainant on an earlier occasion has filed a case in X Crime
No.1101/97 before the respondent alleging commission of offence under Section
408 of IPC on the part of Suryanarayanan, making the very same allegation. In
the said FIR the defacto complainant has stated as follows: "We also learnt that
at Rama Rao Body Works he has started clandestine manufacture of our very same
products for them using some of our materials taken out stealthy and that he has
taken with him complete set of designs, drawing and technical details. The above
amounts to theft, criminal breach of trust misappropriation and cheating." The
respondent after investigation, has closed the said complaint and the defacto
complainant has filed protest petition which was also dismissed. Long time
thereafter, the defacto complainant filed the present complaint alleging that
the accused in the earlier case viz., Suryanarayanan got employment in N.S.Rama
Rao Body Works in which the petitioner herein is the partner and the designs and
drawings brought by him from the defacto complainant company were used for the
manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers identical to the design developed by the
defacto complainant company with the help of AEG Germany.

 14. It is pertinent to point out at this juncture, according to the F.I.R in X
Crime No.1101/97, the alleged offence took place after 8.6.1997 and the
complaint came to be lodged on 14.8.1997. Subsequent to the complaint, M/s.
N.S.Rama Rao Body Works filed a suit in O.S.No.5583 of 2002 against the defacto
complainant praying for declaration that they had right to use drawings and
designs for the manufacture of Vacuum Circuit Breakers and praying for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the
plaintiffs right of manufacturing of Vacuum Circuit Breakers and the same is
pending trial. That apart, there is not even a whisper of allegation against the
petitioner herein and the entire allegations are scented around the first
accused Mr.N.R.Magesh who is the son of the petitioner. It is to be noted at
this juncture that the earlier complaint against S.Suryanarayanan in X Crime
No.1101/1997 has been closed and the main allegation was that he only took the
drawings from the defacto complainants company and after got employment with
N.S.Rama Rao Body Works, made them to use the drawings for the manufacture of of
Vacuum Circuit Breakers. Admittedly, the said complaint has been closed and the
protest petition filed by the defacto complainant was also came to be dismissed.
A comparison of F.I.R in X Crime No.1101/97 and the present F.I.R in
Cr.No.541/2001, there is verbatim reproduction up to paragraph No.21.

 15. The present complaint seems to be on account of private and personal grudge
and it comes under category No.7 of Bajanlals Case 1992 supp.(1) SCC 335
followed in (2006)6 SCC 736 -Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC Ltd., and others. (cited
supra). The dismissal of Crl.O.P. 16932/2005 filed by N.S.Rama Rao Body Works
cannot act as a bar in entertaining the present Crl.O.P. for the reason that it
was dismissed on the ground that the firm has no locus standi to file the
petition to quash the proceedings and it has been held that if any one is
aggrieved, it can only be the persons, who are shown as accused, viz., N.R.Rama
Rao Body Works and its two partners of the firm. The petitioner herein is
Mr.Rama Rao one of the partners of the firm and according to the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, he is more than 80 years old.

 16. The court taking into consideration of the above said relevant facts and
keeping in mind the principles laid down in the above decisions is of the
opinion that the continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner would
clearly amounts to abuse of process of court and would definitely result in
miscarriage of justice and hence the F.I.R in so far as he is concerned is
liable to be quashed.

 17. In the result, the Crl.O.P.is allowed and the F.I.R in Crime No.541/2001 in
so far as the accused No.2/petitioner herein is quashed and the respondent is at
liberty to investigate the case pertaining to the said Crime Number against
other accused in accordance with law and file a final report. Consequently,
Crl.M.P.No.2602 of 2005 is closed.

 18. The above findings/observations are given only for the purpose of disposal
of this Crl.O.P. and this Court is not expressing any opinion as regards the
merits or otherwise of the case registered by the respondent against other
accused.

gr.

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Team No.11,

 Egmore, Chennai-8.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court,

Madras