Criminality Cannot Be Fastened In Every Case For Mere Breach Of Contract: Jharkhand High Court

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed, “On the intervention of this Court, the appointment has been again offered to the complainant by the company, as has been discussed hereinabove, which suggests that opposite party no.2 is unnecessarily dragging this matter and if any case is made out against the petitioners i.e. civil in nature. Mere breach of contract and in every cases, criminality cannot be fastened upon the accused persons.”

The Court's judgment, echoing the principles established in the case of M N G Bharateesh Reddy v. Ramesh Ranganathan and another, emphasized that the complainant was unnecessarily dragging out the matter, which could have been resolved through civil channels.

The petitioner had sought the quashing of all criminal proceedings against them in a case that involved various sections of the IPC, along with the First Information Report (FIR) lodged under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The petitioner's counsel had contended that the dispute originated from a land sale agreement. The land had already been transferred to the company by way of paying the sum of Rs.9 Lakhs in favour of the complainant-opposite party no.2. It was also submitted that the Company has already provided him the job at Kolkata, however, opposite party no.2 has not accepted the same, thereafter, he has filed the present complaint case. It was contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, and initiating criminal proceedings was unwarranted.

On the other hand, the respondent's counsel had contended that the complaint included a letter of assurance outlining the terms and conditions, including the promise of employment. It was further contended that the complainant was being harassed, the land in question was already transferred in favour of the Company and opposite party no.2 had not provided employment. It was also submitted that job provided to opposite party no.2 ws a low grade employment.

The Court took note of the complaint, which revealed that the accused had offered service to the complainant in Kolkata, but the complainant had declined, citing a previous undertaking and the need to stay within the District-SeraikellaKharsawan due to a family member's illness. Additionally, the Court referred to the letter of assurance, which stated that the company would offer a permanent job based on qualifications, project progress, and requirements.

Ultimately, the Court concluded, "the company has already offered employment and has fulfilled part of the terms and conditions, however, opposite party no.2 is not accepting the same. In that view of the matter, the Court finds that to allow to continue the criminal proceedings will amount to abuse of process of law."

Consequently, the Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings, including the order dated 28.01.2013, as well as the order taking cognizance. The Court, however, left it open for the opposing party (no.2) to accept the offered appointment. The petition was allowed.

Counsel For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Kumar Vimal, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate

Counsel For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.

Counsel For O.P. No.2 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate

LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Jha) 49

Case Title: Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited and Other vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Case No.: Cr.M.P. No. 592 of 2013

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment