T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This application is filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code to quash the complaint dated 21.8.1986 (Annexure P1) filed by the respondent Company against the petitioners.
2. The respondent is a Company having it regd. office at Ghaziabad, but it is having its business office and factory at Saila Khurd in District Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab. It is engaged in the business of production, distribution and supply of newsprint and other kinds of paper. The accused No. 1 is also a Company having its regd. office at Varanasi in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It has got three sister concerns namely AJ Prakashan Ltd., Bihar Samachar Patra Limited and Shashwat Printers (P) Limited. All the companies are under the same management and control. They are also publishing Hindi Daily Newspaper `AJ'' mainly having its distribution in the State of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. The accused No. 2 i.e. petitioner No. 2 is Editor, Publisher and Managing Director of the aforesaid Companies. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are General Manager and Financial Controller of the Company which is accused No. 1.
3. According to the allegations made in the complaint sometime in 1992, the accused Company approached the complainant company at Saila Khurd to obtain supply of different quantities of newsprint and the complainant company had been supplying the newsprint from time to time as per orders placed by the accused company. According to the complaint, the accused No. 1 made certain payments from time to time for the supply of newsprint and the same were appropriated. It is further alleged in the complaint that some time in September, 1994 the 1st accused company handed over five postdated cheques in respect of their orders for the supply of material from the complainant at Saila Khurd and the said cheques have been dishonoured on being presented in the year 1996 on different dates. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint for the offences under Section 420 I.P.C. in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar. By an order dated 2.1.1997 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 only and ordered issuance of summons against them. Challenging the said summoning order the accused filed Criminal Misc. No. 11460M of 1997 in this Court. That application was dismissed by this Court on May 23, 1997. Thereafter, the accused filed an application on 12.7.1997 under Section 203 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint and discharge the accused petitioner. In that application, the petitioners have taken the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as it relates to a civil liability and that the complainant has already instituted a civil suit at Garhshankar against the accused in civil suit No. 266 of 1996. They also took the plea that the criminal Court at Garhshankar has no territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and the Court at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh had the jurisdiction. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the accused are entitled to be discharged. That application was dismissed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhshankar by his order dated 18.4.1998.
4. The petitioners therefore filed this application for quashing the complaint and set aside the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Garhshankar dated 18.4.1998.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners inter alia argued that the Court at Garhshankar in the State of Punjab has no jurisdiction since all the transactions have taken place in the State of Uttar Pradesh and the orders have been placed at the Branch Office of the complainant party located at Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. According to him, the supply of the newsprint was made from the godown of the complainant party located at Ghaziabad and the placement of orders was also made at Ghaziabad and the bills issued by the complainant party also show that they were issued from Ghaziabad. The cheques were issued on the Bank situated at Delhi. Therefore, the Court at Garhshankar in the State of Punjab has no jurisdiction to try the complaint.
6. It is to be borne in mind that the case is still at preliminary stage. The accused are taking steps to get the complaint quashed. Firstly, they filed a criminal miscellaneous petition for quashing the summoning order which was dismissed by this Court on 23.5.1997. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Section 203 read with Section 245 Cr.P.C. for their discharge. Since that application has also been dismissed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Garhshankar by his order dated 18.4.1998, the present application has been filed.
7. No evidence has been adduced as yet. Therefore, to determine the various contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners the Court has to see only the allegations contained in the petition and the complaint. In the complaint filed by the respondents, it is clearly stated in paragraph 3 of the complaint that in the month of April, 1992 the accused company approached the complaint company at Saila Khurd to obtain supply of diverse quantities of newsprint papers. Thus, according to the complaint, the original agreement between the parties has been entered into at Saila Khurd within the jurisdiction of the Court at Garhshankar in the State of Punjab.
8. It is also the further case of the complainant that newsprint has been supplied to the 1st petitioner company from time to time. There is also no dispute that the newsprint was manufactured at the complaint''s factory situated within the State of Punjab. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, it has been averred that the complainant company made supplies under various invoices from around September, 1993 onwards to the accused company as per the orders placed on them, inter alia from their factory at Saila Khurd, Distt. Hoshiarpur and the said supplies were made against the cheques/demand drafts drawn by the accused No. 1. In paragraph 5 of the complaint, it is stated that the accused No. 1 company handed over five postdated cheques in respect of their orders for further supply of material from the complainant at Saila Khurd and that the present complaint relates to the said cheques. It is also mentioned in paragraph 6 of the complaint that after telephonic call and assurance given by accused No. 1, the complainant deposited the aforesaid cheques in the Punjab National Bank, Paddi Sura Singh, District Hoshiarpur i.e. within the State of Punjab. Thus prima facie the complaint shows that a part of cause of action has arisen at Saila Khurd in District Hoshiarpur within the State of Punjab. Basing on the evidence adduced before the Court, it is open to the petitioners to contend that the evidence adduced by both the parties does not disclose any commission of offence within the State of Punjab and therefore the Court within the State of Punjab has no jurisdiction, but at this stage, since no evidence has been adduced in the case, it cannot be said that the Court in the State of Punjab has no jurisdiction. This Court cannot rely upon any document which is sought to be relied upon by the petitioners to show that the Court at Garhshankar has no jurisdiction. Any such document has to be proved and marked in accordance with law. Placing reliance on a document which is not filed in trial Court and exhibited is not permissible under law.
9. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute is only of civil nature and that the complainant has not made out a case for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
10. After considering the evidence adduced during the preprocess stage to take cognizance of the case and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate summoning the accused has been confirmed by this Court. It is, therefore, not open to me to go into the correctness of the order issuing summons to the accused for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner fails and is rejected.
11. The 3rd contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the complainant has already filed suit for the recovery of the amount due, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. I am unable to agree with this argument. There may be a civil liability as well as criminal liability. If the cheques have been issued by the accused with dishonest intention to defraud the complainant, then they are liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Whether the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. are made out or not is matter to be decided by the trial Court after the entire evidence is adduced. The civil liability and criminal liability may coexist; otherwise various Sections of Indian Penal Code will become redundant. For example, in the case of trespass, the civil remedy is provided. A person who has been dispossessed by another by trespassing into the land can file a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act apart from his right to file a suit based on title but at the same time, Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code provides criminal liability if the trespass amounts to criminal trespass. In such a situation, one can proceed against a wrongdoer by seeking a remedy both under civil and criminal law. Likewise a person who is cheated and deprived of his money can file a suit for recovery of the money and also proceed against the wrongdoer for cheating him if he is able to prove the ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. Simply because a suit has been filed, it cannot be said that the criminal complaint under Section 420 I.P.C. is not maintainable. Both the remedies coexist and there cannot be any doubt that the burden of proof in both the proceedings is different. In the case of the civil liability, the probabilities and the preponderance of evidence have to be taken into account while in the case of criminal liability, the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond al reasonable doubt and degree of proof is higher in criminal proceedings than in civil proceedings. Since no evidence has been adduced in the case on hand, it cannot be said at this stage that the accused are not guilty of offence under Section 420 I.P.C.
12. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that filing of the criminal complaint is an abuse of process of Court. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. Every citizen has a right to recourse to law. If ultimately the case of the complainant is proved to be false and the petitioners are acquitted, they can file a suit for damages for malicious prosecution.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
