REJESH BAJAJ Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant lodged an FIR with the police for the offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR on the premise that the complaint did not disclose the offence. The Division Bench reminded themselves that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure "should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection" for quashing criminal proceedings. Nevertheless learned Judges found that the case on hand could not pass the test laid down by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) 1 Suppl. SCC 335 . The appellant is obviously aggrieved by the aforesaid course of action adopted by the High Court and hence he filed the special leave petition.

(3.) In the complaint filed by the appellant before the police,on the strength of which the FIR was prepared, the following averments, inter alia, were made. Appellant belongs to a company (M/s. Passion Apparel Private Limited) which manufactures and exports Readymade garments. On 15-11-1994 fifth respondent (Gagan Kishore Srivastava) Managing Director of M/s. Avren Junge Mode Gumbh Haus Der Model approached the complainant for purchase of Readymade garments of various kinds and induced the appellant to believe that 5th respondent would pay the price of the said goods on receiving the invoice. Such payment was promised to be made within fifteen days from the date of invoice of the goods which complainant would despatch to Germany. Appellant believed the aforesaid representation as true and on that belief he despatched goods worth 4,46,597.25 D.M. (Deutsch Marks). In March/April, 1995 respondent on receipt of 37 different invoices got the goods released and sold them to others. But the respondent paid only a sum of 1,15,194 D.M. Appellant further alleged in the complaint that respondent induced him to believe that he is a genuine dealer, but actually his intentions were not clear.