WYETH LIMITED & ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

1132                      [2022]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   6 S.C.R. 1132                [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A                         WYETH LIMITED & ORS.
                                         v.
                           STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2022)
 B                              AUGUST 11, 2022
        [INDIRA BANERJEE AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
              Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Quashing of
       FIR/complaint – When – Held: Complaint is to be quashed when no
       offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint – On
 C
       facts, respondent no. 2 filed private complaint u/s. 200 Cr.P.C, which
       was referred by the court u/s. 156(3) to the police for registration
       of FIR against the appellants u/ss. 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384,
       311, 193, 196/120-B IPC – Reading of the complaint, shows that
       none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against
 D     the appellants made out, thus, it cannot be said that how FIR was
       registered and charge-sheet was filed – Complaint itself disclosed
       nothing more than a commercial relationship which broke, as such
       it was not possible for respondent No.2 to enlarge the scope of his
       complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of the
       Penal Code – Furthermore, the appellant No.1 had instituted a civil
 E
       suit against the respondent, obtained an order for the appointment
       of a Court Receiver; and also lodged a criminal complaint, which
       the High Court refused to quashed; and it is only thereafter the
       respondent No.2 chose to file the said complaint – Also, the High
       Court erred in overlooking the application for bringing on record
 F     the subsequent development of the filing of the charge-sheet and
       the prayer for inclusion of the relief of quashing of the charge-
       sheet in the original petition – Thus, the FIR and the charge-sheet
       against the appellants quashed.
             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
 G     1224 of 2022.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2018 of the High Court
       of Judicature of Bihar at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13742 of
       2014.

 H
                                       1132
    WYETH LIMITED & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                               1133


      Mukul Rohatgi, Gopal Jain, Sr. Advs., Ajay Singh, Samit Rohatgi,          A
Ms. Alka Sinha, Amit Kumar, Vivek Kumar Singh, Anuvrat Sharma,
Advs. for the Appllants.
      Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv., Saket Singh, Ms. Somya Shree, Azmat
Amanullah, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Shaurya Lamba, Akash Bhuyan,
Rushte Saluja, Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advs. for the Respondents.                  B
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
      1. Leave granted.
       2. Aggrieved by an order passed by the High Court of Judicature          C
at Patna dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) for quashing an FIR registered at
the instance of the second respondent herein, the appellants have come
up with the above appeal.
       3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,        D
the learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar and the learned standing
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, who was the
complainant.
      4. The respondent No.2 was engaged by appellant no.1 as its
Carrying and Forwarding agent (C&F), on certain terms and conditions,           E
reduced into writing. The agreement continued from time to time until
February-2012.
       5. Thereafter disputes arose between appellant No.1 and
respondent No.2 which led to appellant No.1 filing a civil suit on the file
of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in CS No.1432 of 2012. In            F
the said suit, the High Court passed an order appointing a Court Receiver
to take possession of the goods including medicines belonging to appellant
No.1, which were in the possession of respondent no.2. The Court
Receiver seems to have executed the warrant and recovered possession
of certain goods, the details of which are not relevant for our present
purpose.                                                                        G

      6. Apart from filing a civil suit, appellant No.1 also filed a criminal
complaint against respondent No.2 for alleged offences under Sections
406 and 420 IPC. By an order dated 14.08.2013, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Patna took cognizance and issued summons to respondent
No.2.                                                                           H
1134            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A            7. Thereafter respondent No.2 filed a criminal complaint before the
       learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. On 12.12.2013, the learned
       Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna passed an order directing the copy of
       the complaint to be forwarded to the Patliputra Police Station, for
       registration of an FIR against the appellants herein. Pursuant to the said
       order, the Patliputra Police Station registered an FIR in Crime No.17 of
 B
       2014 on 07.01.2014, against the appellants herein, for alleged offences
       under Sections 406, 420, 408, 460, 471, 384, 311, 193, 196 read with
       Section 120-B IPC.
             8. Challenging the FIR so registered, the appellants filed a petition
       in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.13742 of 2014 on the file of the
 C     High Court of Judicature at Patna, under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking
       the quashing of the same. When the said petition came up for final
       hearing in the year 2018, the Court was informed that the police had
       already filed a charge-sheet and that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had
       taken cognizance of the same.
 D            9. In the light of the subsequent development as aforesaid, the
       High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the quash petition on
       the only ground that it was not proper to keep the matter pending any
       further. The High Court did not choose to go into the merits of the
       contentions, despite the fact that appellant No.1 moved an application in
 E     IA No.1015 of 2014 for bringing on record the charge-sheet and also for
       inclusion of a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet.
             10. Aggrieved by such a disposal of their quash petition, the
       appellants are before this Court.
              11. The primary contention of Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Gopal
 F     Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is: (i) that the
       complaint filed by respondent No.2 does not disclose the commission of
       any offence; (ii) that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 was only a
       counter blast to the civil suit filed by appellant No.1 and a criminal
       complaint lodged by the appellants against respondent No.2; (iii) that
 G     the High Court overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing
       on record the charge-sheet and for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing
       of the charge-sheet.
              12. In response, it is contended by Mr. Narender Hooda, learned
       senior counsel for respondent No.2 that though the appellants moved an
       application for bringing on record the subsequent development of filing
 H
    WYETH LIMITED & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                            1135
              [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]

of the charge-sheet and also for inclusion of a prayer for quashing the      A
charge-sheet, the appellants were negligent in not pressing for the same
at the time of hearing of the quash petition. According to the learned
senior counsel for respondent No.2, the appellants sought adjournment
on several occasions, without pressing for an order in the Interlocutory
Application and that therefore the Court found it not proper to keep the
                                                                             B
quash petition pending, impeding the trial.
       13. Before going into rival contentions, it would be appropriate to
have a look at the criminal complaint filed by respondent No.2 on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under Section 200 Cr.P.C,
which formed the foundation for the Magistrate passing an order under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the registration of the FIR by the police and the     C
filing of the charge-sheet. In sum and substance, what was alleged in
the said complaint was as follows:
      (i)     that respondent No.2 is a Clearing and Forwarding agent
              for different pharmaceutical companies;
                                                                             D
      (ii)    that appellant No.1 hired the services of respondent No.2
              as its Clearing and Forwarding agent to carry out various
              tasks including the storage of medicines in the godown,
              distribution of the same and corresponding with the
              Government.
                                                                             E
      (iii)   that appellant No.1 acquired another company which had
              taken on rent, a godown situate in the campus of Patna
              Cold Storage Private Limited;
      (iv)    that at the instance of the appellants, respondent No.2
              provided manpower for the distribution of the products of      F
              appellant No.1 and they worked under the supervision of
              the managerial staff of appellant No.1;
      (v)     that certain service charges were payable to respondent
              No.2 for the services so rendered;
      (vi)    that in the meantime the rental agreement for the godown       G
              expired and hence respondent No.2 was not allowed to
              store the drugs in the godown;
      (vii)   that on account of the same, the agreement executed by
              appellant No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 became
              inoperative;                                                   H
1136               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 6 S.C.R.


 A           (viii) that through a supplementary agreement dated 26.11.2004,
                    new conditions were incorporated;
             (ix)    that at the time of execution of the supplementary
                     agreement, it was assured that on and from 1.04.2005,
                     respondent no.2 will be entitled to get the entire work handed
 B                   over to them by having the custody of the godown;
             (x)     that the appellant No.1 also took a bank guarantee from
                     respondent no.2 in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-
             (xi)    that without any prior intimation to respondent no.2, the
                     appellants locked up the godown in 2012.
 C
             (xii)   that respondent No.2 came to know about a new
                     warehousing agreement entered into by appellant No.1
                     behind the back of respondent No.2;
             (xiii) that whenever respondent No.2 raised a question of
 D                  execution of power of attorney in their favour, the appellants
                    threatened to terminate the agency, forcing the respondent
                    No.2 to part with Rs.2,00,000/-per annum;
             (xiv) that due to the non-execution of the power of attorney from
                   2004 till 2012, respondent No.2 could not act as C&F agent;
 E           (xv) that the appellants made use of the furniture and fixtures
                  belonging to respondent No.2 kept in the godown.
             (xvi) that for appointing them as C&F agent, the appellants
                   demanded Rs.12 lakhs, but respondent No.2 refused to pay;
             (xvii) that on 28.02.2012, the Regional Distribution Manager of
 F                  appellant No.1 locked the godown and relieved respondent
                    No.2.
             (xviii) that the furniture and fixtures of respondent No.2 are still
                     inside the godown; and

 G           (xix) that all the above acts showed that the appellants conspired
                   together and committed the offences of cheating, forgery
                   and breach of trust.
              14. A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which we
       have extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any
       of the offences complained against the appellants are made out. Even if
 H
     WYETH LIMITED & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.                              1137
               [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN]

all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to be true, they         A
do not make out any of the offences alleged against the appellants.
Therefore, we do not know how an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet
was also filed.
       15. The contention of the learned senior counsel for respondent
No.2 that the Court has to take note of the final report filed by the police    B
along with the statement of witnesses, could have been accepted by us,
if the whole thing had emanated from a First Information lodged with
the police. Respondent No.2 actually filed a private complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C, which was referred by the Court under Section 156(3)
to the police. When this complaint itself disclosed nothing more than a
commercial relationship which broke, it is not possible for respondent          C
No.2 to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language
used in the text of the Indian Penal Code.
      16. Admittedly appellant No.1 had instituted a civil Suit on the file
of the judicature at Bombay and also obtained an order for the
appointment of a Court Receiver to take possession of the goods lying in        D
the godown. The appellants have also lodged a criminal complaint, which
was refused to be quashed by the High Court of Patna. It is only after
the appellants filed a civil suit and a criminal complaint that respondent
No.2 chose to file his complaint.
       17. The High Court was clearly in error in overlooking the               E
application for bringing on record the subsequent development of the
filing of the charge-sheet and the prayer for inclusion of the relief of
quashing of the charge-sheet in the original petition.
       18. It is too late in the day to seek support from any precedents,
for the proposition that if no offence is made out by a careful reading of      F
the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed.
      19. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the
High Court is set aside and the FIR and the charge-sheet against the
appellants are quashed. There will be no order to costs.
                                                                                G

Nidhi Jain                                                    Appeal allowed.




                                                                                H