Twisted Facts In Highly Belated Complaint To Give Colour Of Criminal Offence: Supreme Court Allows Plea Against Company
The Appeal before the Supreme Court was preferred against the Order in a Criminal Revision by which the High Court’s Single Judge accepted the company’s Revision and directed the police to conduct further investigation.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has dismissed a Criminal Appeal of a person against a company saying that it twisted the facts in its highly belated Complaint to give colour of criminal offence to a civil dispute.
The Appeal before the Court was preferred against the Order in a Criminal Revision by which the High Court’s Single Judge accepted the company’s Revision and directed the police to conduct further investigation.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “… we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant-Company had twisted and manipulated the facts in the highly belated complaint just in order to give a colour of criminal offence to a dispute which was purely civil in nature emanating from the breach of agreement. The conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the final report are unimpeachable.”
The Bench said that the omission of the basic facts in the highly belated complaint, that the Appellant had allegedly provided the complainant Company with some fabricated Government Order, renders the entire case set up in the FIR doubtful and unworthy of credence.
Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Complainant company i.e., the Respondent alleged that the Appellant-accused approached the Complainant’s officers at its registered office and introduced himself as the proprietor of a concern functioning in the name and style of M/s. Haryana Minerals, having its office at Gandhiganj, Chindwara, Nagpur. The Appellant represented that his concern is one of the premier business concerns of Madhya Pradesh, having profound reputation and significant expertise in mining of manganese mineral. He further represented that his concern had been granted a mining lease for excavation of manganese ore by the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
It was alleged that several meetings were held between the Appellant and the officers of the Complainant wherein the modalities for transfer of the mining lease in favour of the Complainant were discussed. It was further alleged that the Appellant resiled from his promise and failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the MOU. Resultantly, a Complaint was filed by the company and the same was forwarded to the concerned police station. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) rejected the Protest Petition and observed that the dispute between the parties primarily arose on account of breach of contract and that the Complainant did not pay the agreed amount to the Appellant in terms of the MOU. This Order was challenged by the Complainant before the High Court, which allowed its Criminal Revision. Being aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “Once the investigation had been completed, the complainant Company tried to take a new stance claiming that the order whereby, the State Government had approved the transfer of the mining lease in favour of the appellant, was forged. However, not even prima facie evidence was provided by the complainant-Company in support of such allegation and it seems to be nothing but a sheer flight of fancy of the complainant-Company to try and continue the lame prosecution and put the appellant under pressure. The complainant-Company is well established in the field of mining.”
The Court was of the opinion that the High Court seems to have been unduly swayed by this totally new and conjectural stance taken by the Complainant-Company in the protest Petition and directed further investigation into the matter without assigning a justifiable and sustainable reason.
“The fact that the FIR was highly belated and that the complainant-Company tried to paint an entirely new picture by imputing that the advance payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- was made to the accused for procuring manganese ore in stark contradiction to the terms and conditions of the MOU were sufficient reasons for the High Court to have refrained from exercising its revisional jurisdiction and directing further investigation into the case”, it added.
The Court further said that the Order passed by the Trial Court accepting the closure report and rejecting the protest Petition is unassailable in view of the undisputed material available on record.
“We have no hesitation in holding that the admitted allegations as set out in the complaint do not disclose the necessary ingredients of any offence whatsoever, what to say, of a cognizable offence. Directing further investigation into such a frivolous complaint, filed after gross, undue and unexplained delay of six years, is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law”, it also held.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the High Court’s Order, and restored the CMM’s Order.
Cause Title- Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. M/s. Haldia Steels Limited & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 636)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AORs Rohit Anil Rathi, Vatsalya Vigya, Advocates Yash Maheshwari, Niharika Singh, Shakul R. Ghatole, Shyam Dewani, Saahiil Dewani, and Pranjal Chapalgaonkar.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AORs Nitesh Ranjan, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Advocates Parijat Chandan, Abhinav Gupta, Neelaksh, Ravi Kumar Singh, Pankaj Agarwal, and Raja Chatterjee.
