SHIV JATIA Vs. GIAN CHAND MALICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal no.776 of 2024 is the accused no.2 in the complaint filed by the 1st respondentcomplainant under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.PC') alleging the commission of offences under Ss. 420, 406, 467, 468 and 472 read with Sec. 120­B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC') and Sec. 13 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellants in Criminal Appeal no.777 of 2024 are the accused nos.1, 4 and 5 in the same Complaint. The appellants in these two appeals filed a petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.PC before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for quashing the said complaint and for quashing the summoning order dtd. 16/7/2013 passed on the said complaint. The High Court, by the impugned judgment dtd. 25/8/2014, dismissed the said petition.

(2.) On 23/9/2002, under the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributorship Agreement (for short, 'the Distributorship Agreement'), the accused no.1 - M/s.Energy Infrastructure (India) Limited (for short, 'the accused company') appointed the 2nd respondent­accused no.7 (Arun Sharma, Proprietor of M/s.Arshya Max Agencies) as a distributor for distribution of LPG cylinders in the areas of Panchkula and Chandigarh. The 2nd respondent, on behalf of the accused company, purported to execute a Point of Sale agreement on 7/3/2003 (for short, 'the POS agreement') by which he purported to appoint the 1st Respondent­ complainant as a sales outlet (Point of Sale) in the town of Dhanas to sell MaxGas to the consumers. By the POS agreement, the 2nd respondent agreed to pay a flat rate commission per cylinder sold by the 1st respondent­ complainant. A demand draft in the sum of Rs.74,900.00­ was issued in favour of the accused company by the 1st respondent­complainant.

(3.) The accused company addressed a letter dtd. 3/3/2004 to the 2nd respondent alleging serious lapses in customer services rendered by the 2nd respondent, which allegedly caused a big dent in the reputation of the accused company. Various instances of lapses in service were set out in the said letter. The accused company also stated that the 2nd respondent had illegally supplied the cylinders to the 1st respondent­complainant beyond the assigned territory in Punjab. It was specifically stated in the said letter that the name of the 1st respondent­complainant was not reflected in the records of the accused company as a Point of Sale. The accused company alleged that, thus, the 2nd respondent had committed a breach of the Distributorship Agreement. Another allegation in the said letter was that a cheque issued by the 2nd respondent had been dishonoured.