Reliance Industries Ltd vs Shyam Sundar vs Sharma on 30 July,2018
Date of Judgment :-30th July,2018
Court :- HIGH COURT OF ORISSA:CUTTACK
CaseType :- CRLMC No.359 Of 2012
Appellant :- Reliance Industries Ltd.
Respondent:- Shyam Sundar Sharma
Bench :- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
Referred:- Sections 420,384,427,471,467 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The case discussed is CRLMC No. 359 of 2012 in the Orissa High Court. The petitioner, Reliance Industries Ltd. (R.I.L.), filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the order passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh, in connection with I.C.C. Case No. 69 of 2009. The complainant in the case is Shyam Sundar Sharma, and the opposite party is R.I.L.
According to the complaint filed by Shyam Sundar Sharma, he was fraudulently persuaded by individuals associated with R.I.L. to establish a R.I.L. Petrol Pump at Khuntuni. They promised a guaranteed profit margin and convinced him to purchase land for the pump. The R.I.L. allegedly induced Sharma to execute a lease deed and a dealership agreement and extorted a significant amount of money from him. The complainant also claimed that R.I.L. acted in connivance with the State Bank of India in providing finance to him under deceitful and fraudulent terms.
The complainant further alleged that R.I.L. abruptly suspended the supply of petrol and diesel to his outlet and demanded payment of the outstanding loan. The complainant claimed that he incurred a loss of about one crore rupees as a result of these actions.
After the complaint was filed, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the initial statement of the complainant and conducted an inquiry. The Magistrate then passed an order based on the complaint, the initial statement, and the statements of witnesses recorded during the inquiry.
The petitioner, R.I.L., approached the Orissa High Court seeking the quashing of the order passed by the Magistrate.
The petitioner also highlighted that the complainant had filed multiple proceedings on similar grounds before various forums, including consumer cases and arbitration applications. The petitioner relied on various cases to support its arguments.
The court noted the contentions of the petitioner and observed that the complainant had already approached other forums for redressal of his grievances. The court also found that the allegations made in the complaint, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute the offenses for which the impugned order was passed. The court relied on precedents and held that in cases where the ingredients of the offenses were highly improbable and absurd, the court could exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the proceedings.
In light of the above considerations, the court allowed the petition filed by R.I.L. and quashed the impugned order passed by the Magistrate, thereby disposing of the case.
The petitioner argued that the complaint lacked a duly sworn affidavit or verification and contended that the allegations were baseless and should be addressed through civil action rather than criminal proceedings. They also cited various legal cases in support of their arguments.
On the other hand, the opposite party supported the order taking cognizance and raised objections regarding the maintainability of the application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They argued that the petitioner’s documents were part of the defense plea and should be considered during the trial, not at this stage.
JUDGMENT
After considering the arguments of both parties, the court addressed the issue of maintainability and concluded that an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order taking cognizance is indeed maintainable. The court referred to previous judgments and the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 to correct errors, ensure justice, and prevent abuse of the court’s process.
The court did not provide a final decision on the quashing of the cognizance order but discussed the arguments raised by both parties in detail. The judgment includes a summary of the petitioner’s contentions, such as force majeure situation, contractual relationship, and previous legal proceedings initiated by the complainant on similar grounds. The court also mentioned the complainant’s arguments supporting the impugned order.
In summary, the discussions and evidence presented suggest that the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is being used as a means of harassment and to pressure them into compensating the complainant. However, upon reviewing the complaint, initial statement, and witness statements, it is concluded that none of the offenses mentioned in the Indian Penal Code can be made out against the petitioner. Therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of the legal process and ensure justice, the impugned order issued by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh in I.C.C. Case No.69 of 2009, specifically regarding the petitioner, is quashed. The CRLMC application is allowed.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Anshika Srivastava of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
