Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others

Name of the case	Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others
Equivalent Citation	AIR 1999 SC 3499
Court	Supreme court [India]
Judge	K.T.THOMAS,M.B.SHAH
Case No.	Criminal Appeal no.  950  of 1990
Petitioner	TRISUNS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Respondent	RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS
Judgement Date	17/09/1999

Facts of the case –

• Chairman filed a complaint regarding offences of the cheating against another company located in Madhya Pradesh. Magistrate forward complaint to the appellant for the investigation as per order 156[3] of the Cpc. [ Code of civil Procedure]. Thereafter directors moved to high court of Gujarat under section 482 for quashing the complaint.

• The gist of complaint includes as In the Month of October 1996, accused director approaches to the supply of 5450 miles tones of toasted soyabean price for 4 crores and half of rupees. this rate exceeded the limit by the market price. Appellant paid the amount in advance as per the directions by the accused through cheques. Thereafter, the accused sent commodities was of such inferior and sub-standard quality in nature. This is also proved through the laboratory testing reports of the products. Therefore complaint would suffered the loss of 7 lakhs.

• Sections Covered – 156 of code of civil procedure: Without the direction of a Magistrate, any officer in charge of a police station may investigate any cognizable case that a Court having jurisdiction over the local region within the bounds of such station would have competence to inquire into or trial under the requirements of Chapter XIII.

• Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure: The inherent powers of the High Court are preserved. Nothing in this Code will be construed to restrict or hinder the High Court’s inherent rights to issue such orders as may be required to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of any Court’s process, or to otherwise protect the objectives of justice.

• Section 177 of the code of criminal procedure:  Chapter XIII of the Cr. P.C. establishes jurisdiction to conduct an investigation and hold a trial. According to Section 177 of the Act, every offence shall generally be investigated and tried by the Court whose local jurisdiction it was committed.

• Section 179 of the code of criminal procedure: Whenever a crime is carried out or an aftermath happens, an offence is triable. Whenever an act defines an infraction owing to everything accomplished and the consequence that has happened, the crime being committed may be probed or investigated by the judiciary in the community where the offence took place or the outcome took place.

• Section 193 of the code of criminal procedure: Until specifically provided as this law or any other appropriate law, no Court of the session will have jurisdiction of any conduct as a Judge having initial competence until the case has been submitted to it by a magistrate by the terms of this Code.

Issue –

• Whether the complaint company did suffer the loss as alleged by it and matter revolve by civil court and not the matter of criminal nature.?                  
• The court Highlights that with due respect to the observation, it is stated that facts revealed in the case is of commercial transaction or money transaction, but this is hardly a reason for holding the offence of cheating were committed in course of commercial transaction or money transaction.

Contentions of the Petitioners–

• Firstly, the complainant wants their money back for the amount they have suffered the losses.
• He was induced to pay the price on the representation that the best quality commodity would be supplied and the price was paid on such representation.
• But quality of product was not same as stated by the accused, it is further mentioned by the complainant.
• But by supplying the most inferior quality of product to the complainant, the accused deceived the complainant and thereby offence of cheating was committed.

Contentions of the Respondents –

• The Two contentions made by the counsel in his words-
• First, that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and therefore no prosecution should have been permitted.
• Second one was the, Judicial Magistrate of First class, Gandhiram has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Judgement –

• There is nothing in the complaint which means that any part of transaction took place within the territory of Gujarat, also the supply of the toasted soyabean was delivered to the complainant factory itself, that’s why the court held that Mr. Shah is right Judicial Magistrate Gandhiram ought not to have taken consequence and directed the issue.
•  Further, also held, that if any of the accused arrested with the most probably embroil reside at indore, in connection with the above complaint, He shall be released on bail by arresting the officer on execution of a bond to his satisfaction.
• However, Such Arrested person shall be bound to report to the investigating officer at the place and the time specified for the purpose of interrogation.
• The Appeal is Disposed Of in the above terms.

Conclusion-

• The Supreme Court frequently states that the quashment of an Investigation or an allegation in the execution of the High Court’s inherent authority should be confined to the most serious instances.

• State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 suppl. (1) SCC 335) and Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi (1999(3) SCC 259) are two anomalies. The court in this case also stated in the last pointed out an example that only because an act is granted a commercial appearance does not automatically absolve it of its felony illicit essence.

• They have no way to fully comprehend what reasoning is underpinning the settlement’s provisions to conveying disagreements to arbitrator as a suitable substitute for criminal charges where the reproved act is an infraction.

• Arbitrator is a remedy that provides relief to the party affected by a violation of the agreement, however the arbitrator cannot conduct an inquest of any act that amounted to an offence, even if the same act is related with the fulfilment of any function under the terms of the agreement. As a result, they are not enough reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the claim at the stage of preparation. The scientific authority must have been permitted to look into all of the accusations before arriving at the appropriate choices of his own.

• Only in the most severe instances would such an examination be warranted.

written by Nishtha Tandon intern under legal vidhiya