- (1.)BY this petition under Section 482, Cr. PC, petitioner requests for quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 376/2002, pending in the Court of MFC, Jabalpur.
(2.)PETITIONER Santosh Choubey is the Director of All India Society for Electronics and Computer Technology (AISECT) having office and headquarter at Bhopal. As a Director, he granted franchise to respondent Pankaj gulati and appointed him as District Manager to look after the centres at jabalpur and for the purpose, demanded a security amount of Rs. 50,000/ -. The amount was accordingly paid by the respondent. Acting as a District manager for District Jabalpur, the respondent collected the following amounts from the students of 24 centres :- (a) Rs. 2,90,003/- for the Session beginning from July, 2000 to September, 2001. (b) Rs. 1,10,008/- for the Sessions beginning from April, 2001 to September, 2001. (c) Rs. 1,60,000/- for the Sessions beginning from October, 2001 to March, 2002. The amount aforesaid was remitted to the petitioner. Under the agreement, the respondent was entitled to Royalty at the rate of 5% on the total sum. It was agreed that respondent would be entitled for 40% share for the affiliation of new centres and 60% was the share to be taken by the petitioner. The respondent was also entitled for 25% share in case of renewal franchise with the centres in the District of Jabalpur. Having received the total amount from the respondent, the petitioner resiled from the promise and revoked the franchise. On being asked to return Rs. 50,000/-, amount of security deposit and Royalty share etc. the petitioner refused to oblige, therefore, the respondent filed a complaint (D-7) before the MFC, Jabalpur. Recording statement of respondent (D-8), the MFC vide order dated 18-10-2002, directed registration of Criminal Case (376/2002) under Sections 406, 420 of IPC against the petitioner.
(3.)IT is contended that the MFC committed manifest error in law in registering the criminal case against the petitioner for an offence under sections 406,420 of IPC completely overlooking the facts that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken to their face value did not constitute a criminal offence. The undisputed contract in question and consideration of reciprocal obligation of parties and allegations of breach against petitioner, did not constitute any offence. At the most a contractual civil dispute exists between the parties and for which the respondent should not have permitted to abuse the process of Court.