AMIT AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek quashment of the First Information Report (for short "the FIR"), being MECR 08 of 2012 (Annexure ­ P/1), registered at Police Station MRA, Mumbai for the offence under Sections 406, 465, 467, 466, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"), further holding the said FIR in contravention to the principle of law. The petitioners also seek for transferring the investigation in the FIR i.e. MECR 08 of 2012 to the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioners also seek quashment of the order dated 29.06.2012 (Annexure ­ P/2) passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai (for short "the ACMM").

(2.) THE indisputable facts, as projected by the petitioners, in brief, are that the petitioners No. 1 & 3 are the Directors of Hira Steel Limited (for short "Hira"), petitioner No.2 was the former Director of Hira and he retired w.e.f.

(3.) ON receiving the information from Intertek, the officers of Hira contacted Prasanna through e-mail and informed about the quality as well as the Fe contents of the iron ore, on which Prasanna orally informed that the iron ore supplied was of the quality stipulated in the agreement. Even on 21.06.2011 (Annexure ­ P/7), Coastal gave an undertaking that they shall take full responsibility of entire loss incurred during the sale of material. After obtaining the undertaking from Coastal, Hira entered into sale and purchase agreement on the High Seas bearing Contract No. NR/HSL/IRON/070101 dated 01.07.2011 with one Mr. Niraj Shrivastava (for short "Niraj"), Proprietor of NR Resources, for sale of the iron ore fines to the end buyer at China. Thereafter, when the cargo reached China and was inspected by inspecting authority of the Chinese Government, it was found that the Fe content in the said iron ore was only 41.18%. Consequently, the buyer cancelled the contract and returned the documents to the banker of Niraj.