SRIHARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner / accused seeking to quash the entire proceedings initiated in Cr.No.405/2011 registered by Rural Police Station, Tumkur for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468 and 379 of IPC.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Shri Deepak S. Shetty for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri M. Shashidhara for Respondent No.2 who appear through video conferencing. But learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 is present before court physically. Consequently, heard his arguments as well.

(3.) It transpires in the case relating to Cr.No.405/2011 registered by the Tumkur Rural P.S. as per the complaint filed on 10.11.2011 that the complainant / second respondent herein namely T.S. Siddalingappa was running Shree Siddalingeshwara Rice Industries at Plot No.9/10, 2nd Phase, Antharasanahalli Industrial Area, Tumkur. The complainant was said to be purchasing paddy and hulling and was trading the same in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhrapradesh. In order to do the said business, the complainant used to purchase paddy from paddy growing areas and paddy markets. During the course of his business, the complainant was regularly approached by a good number of dealers who came to do business in the complainant s place. In the course of his business, the complainant was also approached by the accused / petitioner herein who had come to Tumkur in search of prospective buyers for sale of paddy. The accused is said to have mesmerized the complainant to purchase paddy from him even though the complainant was purchasing paddy from some others. Thus, the petitioner / accused started supplying paddy to the second respondent / complainant on credit basis. He had supplied paddy from 29.05.2009 to 27.06.2009 on various dates under different bills. Thus, the accused / petitioner had supplied a total quantity of 6,042.29 quintals of paddy, even though the complainant did not place such orders. Though the second respondent had expressed his inability to store the said paddy in respect of which orders were not placed by him, the petitioner / accused had stated that he did not have sufficient space to store the same and that he would take back the paddy in respect of which orders were not placed, if they were not used. Further, the second respondent / complainant had paid Rs.55,10,000/- as part payment to the petitioner / accused through Bank transfers for supply of paddy.