REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1224 OF 2022
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10730 OF 2018)

WYETH LIMITED & ORS.            …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.           ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Leave granted.

2. Aggrieved   by   an   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of

Judicature 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.
Signature Not Verified Heard   the   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for   the
Digitally signed by
GULSHAN KUMAR
ARORA

appellants, the learned standing counsel for the State of Bihar
Date: 2022.08.24
09:52:17 IST
Reason:
 2

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, reduced into writing. The agreement continued from

time to time until February­2012.

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   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.

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.
 3

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   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 120­B 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 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 charge­sheet and

that  the Chief Judicial  Magistrate had taken cognizance of the

same.

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
 4

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   IA   No.1015   of   2014   for   bringing   on

record   the   charge­sheet   and   also   for   inclusion   of   a   prayer   for

quashing the charge­sheet.

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 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   the   High   Court

overlooked the pendency of an application for bringing on record

the charge­sheet and for the inclusion of a prayer for quashing of

the charge­sheet.

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

 5

development of filing of the charge­sheet and also for inclusion of

a   prayer   for   quashing   the   charge­sheet,   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 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 filing of the charge­sheet. 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;
(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.
 6

(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 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 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;
(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 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.
 7

(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
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   non­execution   of   the   power   of
attorney from 2004 till 2012, respondent No.2 could
not act as C&F agent;
(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 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
(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
 8

the   offences   complained   against   the   appellants   are   made   out.

Even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to

be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against

the   appellants.     Therefore,   we   do   not   know   how   an   FIR   was

registered and a charge­sheet 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 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 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   the   godown.   The   appellants   have   also   lodged   a

criminal complaint, which was refused to be quashed by the High
 9

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

application for bringing on record the subsequent development of

the filing of the charge­sheet and the prayer for inclusion of the

relief of quashing of the charge­sheet 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 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 charge­sheet against

the appellants are quashed.  There will be no order to costs.

…………………………….J.
(Indira Banerjee)

…………………………….J.
(V. Ramasubramanian)

New Delhi
August 11, 2022.
 10

ITEM NO. 2/1 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10730/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-05-2018

in CRM No. 13742/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna)

WYETH LIMITED & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.172304/2018-EXEMPTION FROM

FILING O.T. and IA No.172302/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST
OF DATES and IA No.172306/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 11-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Samir Rohatgi, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.

Ms. Somya Shree, Adv.
Mr. Azmat Amanullah, Adv.
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR

Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.

Mr. shaurya Lamba, Adv.
Mr. Akash Bhuyan, Adv.
Mr. Rushte Saluja, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR
 11

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

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.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(MANISH ISSRANI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
 12

ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 10730/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-05-2018

in CRM No. 13742/2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna)

WYETH LIMITED & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.172304/2018-EXEMPTION FROM

FILING O.T. and IA No.172302/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST
OF DATES and IA No.172306/2018-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 11-08-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv.
Mr. Samir Rohatgi, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Saket Singh, Adv.

Ms. Somya Shree, Adv.
Mr. Azmat Amanullah, Adv.
Mrs. Niranjana Singh, AOR

Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv.

Mr. shaurya Lamba, Adv.
Mr. Akash Bhuyan, Adv.
Mr. Rushte Saluja, Adv.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pandey, AOR
 13

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed.

Reasons to follow.

(MANISH ISSRANI) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)