PHARMED CHEMICALS LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. SAINATH AGENCIES BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 8-5-2000 passed by IV Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore in C. C. No. 8141/2000 (PCR. No. 49/97)whereby, the learned Magistrate rejected the 'b' final report submitted by the I. O. and directed the office to register the case against the revision petitioner /accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 120-B, IPC and to issue summons. Therefore, the revision petitioner herein has come up before this Court mainly on the ground that the 1st petitioner received the chemical components and closed down the business in the middle of the year 1997 and the further allegations made by the respondent/complainant attracts the provision under Sections 406 and 415 Cr. P. C. r/w Section 120-B of IPC.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the revision petitioners that the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose any intentional deception on the part of the revision petitioners right from the beginning of the transactions and the allegations does not constitute any offence much less the provisions of Section 420 IPC and therefore, it would amount to an abuse of process of Court. It is further contended that the allegations made in the complaint does not disclose any intentional deception and it must exist right from the beginning of the transaction. In support of the said contention, counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on a decision reported in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : (AIR 2000 sc 2341 : 2000 Cri LJ 2983) wherein it has been held as under :