- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in connection with C-1 Case No. 170 of 2010 including the order dated 30.3.2010 passed therein, by Shri A.K. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby after enquiry in the complaint petition, prime facie case was found against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and processes were ordered to be issued against them. It appears from the record that respondent No. 2 Deepak Singh filed a complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was registered as C/1 Case No. 170 of 2010. From the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant applied for a franchisee from the accused petitioners, who were running M/s ICA Infotech Pvt. Ltd., imparting education in computer related courses. It appears from the complaint petition that earlier the complainant had applied for the franchisee at Ranchi, for which he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,20,600/- and the Center was to be launched by June 29, 2009. It also appears that subsequently, the accused persons expressed their unwillingness to appoint any franchisee at Ranchi, rather, they offered franchisee for Jamshedpur and as such, another M.O.U. was entered into between the parties on 23.5.2009. There is allegation that the petitioners have appointed another franchisee at Jamshedpur. Accordingly, the complaint petition was filed by the complainant for the offence under Sections 420, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The Court below after enquiry found the case prime case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of summons against them, which has been challenged in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the complaint petition itself, it could appear that whatever allegation against the petitioners is there, it amounts only to a breach of contract between the parties in a business transaction. Learned counsel submitted that it is not the case of the complainant that from the very beginning, the petitioners were having the dishonest intention of cheating and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioners under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. As such, it is a fit case, in which, the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners should be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that on the basis of allegation made in the complaint petition, the offence is clearly made out against the petitioners for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, inasmuch, the petitioners had accepted the amount of Rs. 3,20,6000/- from the complainant and still another franchisee was appointed at Jamshedpur. It is, however, admitted that franchisee was also offered to the complainant respondent No. 2. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and upon going through the material on record, it appears that it is a case purely emanating from a business contract between the parties alleging breach of contract at the hands of the petitioners. It cannot be said from perusal of the complaint petition that the petitioners were having the dishonest intention of cheating from the very beginning, rather, according to the learned counsel for the complainant, franchisee was offered to the complainant as well. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that there is no criminal liability against the petitioners, though, there may be civil liability. As such, in the facts of the case, the continuation of criminal case against the petitioners is sheer misuse of process of law and the same cannot be allowed to be continued.;