If A Middle Man Usurps Crops Price Of Hard Working Farmer & He Is Allowed To Go Scot-Free, It Would Amount To Great Injustice: P&H High Court

The Bench of Justice H. S. Madaan, while denying the benefit of pre-arrest bail, observed,

"There is no plausible and satisfactory explanation coming forward from the side of petitioners as to why they have not made payment to the complainants after receiving the price of crops sold by them to the Government through commission agency of the accused."

Facts of the case

A written complaint was submitted by the Complainants (farmers) to SSP, Sangrur to register an FIR against the petitioners Vijay Kumar, his wife Darshna Rani as well as their son Deepak Kumar.

Inter alia, in the complaint, the complainants contended that Vijay Kumar and his whole family had been working as commission agents at village Lassoi, they purchased Kharif (rice crop) but they did not make the payment to the concerned farmers, although they had received the amount deposited by the Government with regard to the crops sold by the farmers.

It was alleged in the complaint that the accused had used the money for their own purposes and it was with great difficulty that the accused had paid an amount of Rs.28 lakhs out of total amount of Rs.70 lakhs, whereas remaining amount was misappropriated.

They also alleged that the accused purchased several properties with the money belonging to the innocent farmers receiving the amount from the Government without paying the same to the farmers concerned. On receipt of such complaint, formal FIR was registered.

Argument put forth

Petitioners/accused stated before the Court that the money stood already paid and the petitioners-accused do not have any financial liability towards the complainant. However, the court noted that they took this plea without producing sufficient evidence to substantiate those contentions.

Court's Observations

The Court, in its order, noted that hard earned money running into lakhs of rupees belonging to the complaint/farmers had been usurped by the petitioners and that they allegedly created huge properties by use of this money and other money said to have been misappropriated by the petitioner/accused Vijay Kumar of various farmers.

The Court further said,

"Leniency and misplaced sympathy cannot be shown to the petitioners by granting concession of pre-arrest bail to them by ignoring the plight of the complainant/farmers, who do hard work and put in lot of efforts in the agricultural operation hoping to get reward for such efforts in having good crops and then to earn their livelihood by sale of such crops."

Importantly, the Court said,

"If some middle man successfully usurps the price of the crops and is allowed to go scot-free, that shall result in perversity of the justice and would amount to great injustice to the affected complainant/farmers. Both the petitioners are stake holders in the commission agency business and are liable to pay dues of the complainant/farmers."

Noting that Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is definitely required to find the necessary details of the criminal acts committed by them and for the purpose of recovery of money, the Court remarked,

"In case custodial interrogation of the petitioners is denied to the investigating agency that would leave many loose ends and gaps in the investigation affecting the investigation being carried out adversely, which is not called for."

Therefore, the Court found that no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to either of the petitioners was made out and thus, the petitions stood dismissed.

Case title - Darshna Rani v. State of Punjab along with Vijay Kumar v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-1600-2021 & CRM-M-2138-2021]

Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

Read Order/Judgment