M M MONGA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prays for quashing of FIR No. 248 dated 8.4,1996, registered under Sections 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code in P.S. Kalkaji, New Delhi.

(2.) . The say of the petitioner is that petitioner company entered into the LPG marketting business and floated a number of companies with regard to the LPG in view of liberalization policy of the Government of India; that the companies also started botteling plants at different places in the country and appointed distributors for carrying out its LPG marketting business;. that the petitioner also acquired approximately 1,30,000 cylinders for Its customers and distributors the connections through out the country for supply of LPG; that respondent No.6 and its company M/s. Sterling LPG & Fuel Ltd. was appointed as the distributors for Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu by the petitioner's company; that respondent No.6 and the company signed agreement dated 31.12.1994 for setting up botteling plants in the south on partnership basis; that petitioner and the respondent also signed another agreement dated 2.1.1995 with regard to the said botteling and distribution business; that the petitioner has purchased from the Government Undertakings 2500 MT of LPG and after botteling the same, it has been distributed by the petitioner to its customers as per the orders of its distributors; that gas supplied by the petitioner is however not cost effective as against the gas supplied by the Government undertakings as the government had not withdrawn the subsidies till date as promised by the Finance Ministry in the Parliament; that respondent No.6 wrote a letter to the petitioner requesting to refund the security deposits as he was no more interested to do business with the petitioner and his companies; that the petitioner refunded the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000.00 vide four cheques alongwith a letter; that the said cheques, however, were dishonoured as the deposits of the petitioner company of Rs.30.00 lakhs and Rs.25.00 lakhs with two companies were not returned; that respondent No.6 accordingly issued notices u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the petitioner company but did not file any complaint in the court on the basis of the said notices; that the petitioner paid to respondent No.6 a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs against one of the said dishonoured cheques and requested him for some more time for making the balance payments; that on 8.4.1996 respondent No.6 filed a false complaint u/s. 420 r.w.S. 120B Indian Penal Code cancelling the agreements dated 31.12.1994 and 2.1.1995 and also concealed the fact that the cheques were issued but the same were returned and that he failed to file any complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within the period of limitation; that respondent No.6 also concealed the fact that he had been having financial dealings with the petitioner and the details of the payments in lakhs received by him during the course of business;. that the dispute is a civil dispute and not a criminal dispute; that questions relate to the fulfilment of the obligations under the agreements entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.6; that the FIR does not contain any allegation constituting the offence u/s. 468 and 471 IPC; that offence u/s. 420 Indian Penal Code is compoundable at the instance of respondent No.6; that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 5.00 lakhs in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate and deposited Rs.10.00 lakhs in this court; that the complaint is malafide and false.

(3.) . It is submitted by Mr. Narula, learned counsel for the petitioner that cause of action is u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not u/s. 420 IPC; that the dispute is of civil nature; that the complaint is false concealing the agreements between the parties; that no offence u/s. 420 Indian Penal Code is made out; that clause 5 of the agreement provides for the consequence in the event of breach of agreement; that there is no criminal intention of cheating; that the allegations in the complaint are vague; that the petitioner has paid Rs.20.00 lakhs. As against this, it is submitted by Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondents 1-5 that representation (page 25) is false; that the writing "APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA" is a deception, false hood; that "BAJAJ LPG" is not approved by the Government and a false certificate has been given by the petitioner to induce the public to part with their money; that the intention is dishonest from the beginning; that there is a larger conspiracy, various companies are involved; that petitioners have collected Rs.65.00 lakhs in this dealership; that FIR discloses the offence; that in June, 1994 to September 1994, the accused had nothing and had no capacity to supply and there was no agreement at all during this period; that on 17.11.1993, the name of the company has been changed to Monga Blue Flames Limited, yet the accused continued to collect the money in the name of BB Flames; that FIR and the material collected suggests the offence and quashing of complaint and investigation would not be permissible u/s. 482 Criminal Procedure Code .; that motive for payment of Rs.l5.00 lakhs after the filing of the FIR is suggestive of the truth in the allegations in the FIR and by paying this amount, the petitioner wants the whole thing to be hushed up so that the other facts and cheating by him are not unearthed. It is submitted by Mr. Meet Malhotra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 that why a certificate of approval by Govt of India was issued by the petitioner; that IC Number mentioned in the certificate is a falsity; that the basis of the agreement is a fraud and deception; that the victims arc countless; that Bajaj LPG itself is a fraud; that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no bar to the prosecution; that investigation is in. progress and there is no question of quashing of the proceedings.