U. DHAR AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 447

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M.B. SHAH, ARUN KUMAR

Judgment text

H~ t: i ~~ 1i-. ""' ~i ~I 1·. ,;Y:. ,J?. ~~R. A°? '. 'JI?.. i~~~· 3,~~.. . -:i ' ,, _,, JI '-1 ;. ,,I . A •i. -.. f ( . ;~1~l'•· '! Ii ·. -l. 1i T ,;,. v.. J·. i, r 1;, •t ·! i'i1; ·.... ~•1r. 1 lf'l. ,IU ,- 1 ~'"'·i THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR. '' •~' II ! 1 1 ' '" '' jANUARY 20, ·2003"'. ,,.. "" " ':··' ,: .. ". ... fl ' ·' lo. ' ·" • [M. B. ' SHAH AND ARUN'KUMAR, 'JJ:J I"'" '· ·' t>. ' ·1i _41'. UJO 1_f, i. 111 ,··. :,:. f~·tr11; ,rt t1· ·11·1:: _. ,.! t ·~,h ~· "'. ~t! J~1. ,:f'"\;; ·11'. ; "'" ,·i Pena{{:ode, . 1860-,Sections,40J,: 406,' 420 and. 1208. _,cognizance of . offence underSection~Justificqtiortof.... Complainantfillng c'"iminalcomplatnt againstca company ofl'. ilccountofnon payment: qfmoneyfor; . workdone. under ·ccnttact... Court,taking.. cognizance· and i. Suing,summons~Aggrieved . party filing petiticmfor,quashingiof. order-;Jfigh·-Court . dismissing ·the . same-On . appeal held, ;since. the dispute,. between.. parties is. ofcMl nature and basic .

ingredient, of alleged,offence . are ·not :-satisfied,. no. clls f TCPL to pay the amount said to be due urider the contract. The complainant has alleged that TCPL has already received the money from SAIL for the work in question and it has misappropriated the same for its own use instead of paying it to the complainant and it is for this reasori that the offences are alleged under Sections 403, 406 and 420 etc. The courts. below have overlooked the fact that the contract between Bokaro Steel (a unit of. SAIL) and TCPL is a separate and independent . contract. The contract between complainant and _ TCPL is altogether a different . contract. The contractual obligations under both the contracts are separate and independent ofeach other. The rights and obligations of the parties i. e. the complainant and TCPL are to be governed D . by the contract between them for which the contract between TCPL and . Bokaro Steel· (SAIL) .

has no relevance, Therefore, even if Bokaro Steel has made the paymentto TCPL under. its contract with the latter, it will not give rise to plea of misappropriation of money because that money. is not money or movable property of the complainant. Further Section 403 uses the words 'dishonestly' and 'misappropriate'. These are necessary ingredients of an offence under Section 403, IPC. Neither of these ingredients are satisfied in the facts and circumstance of the case. In para 14 of the complaint,the complainant has stated as under: "...... Release ofpayments to complainant was never depended ·on the I ·payment released by Bolqtro Steel Plant a Unit of SAIL to TISCO " ·growth sh~p and TCPL'. 1• . . . . ·. ·. · . , ·.. ~ · · · 1.. U. DHAR v. STATE OF IHARKHAND [ARUN KUMAR, J. ) 451 out for the alleged offences even as per the complaint filed by the complainant, . A there _is_ no reason_ to permit the appellants to be subjected to trial for the alleged offences.

Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders of the High Court as well as of Chief Judicial Magistrate are hereby ordered to be quashed. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2003@ SLP(CRL)N0. 269812002: Leave granted. In view of the above judgment, this appeal is also allowed. N. J. Appeal allowed. . ,I..