RAJENDER NARAYAN VAJPEYI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of Chanda Advertising and besides having office at32,Metcalf Street, Calcutta since 1978 had also opened an office in Delhi sometimes in 1991 Respondent No.2 is the proprietor of a firm known as M/s.SMN Phototype Setters with their office at.l - 6, Lajpat Nagar - II, New Delhi. Since 1987 the petitioner had the dealings with respondent No.2 and used to get his work done from the said respondent for which 2regular bills used to be sent by her which in the normal course of business used to be paid by the petitioner. In the year 1992, the petitioner got some work done from respondent No.2 for which the said respondent submitted her bills and on a particular date a sum of Rs.1,36,394.00 was allegedly due from the petitioner to respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 was the office . in - charge of the petitioner's office in Delhi at the relevant time It appears that for certain reasons the petitioner closed his office in Delhi and shifted his entire activities to Calcutta from where he was earlier carrying on business. Respondent No.2 after having failed in her efforts to recover the money allegedly due to her from the petitioner gave notice to him through her advocate. In spite of notice the amount w as allegedly not paid by the petitioner. She, therefore, preferred a complaint against the petitioner and respondent No 3 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging inter alia that the petitioner with dishonest intention not to pay the amount due to the complainant had closed his office in Delhi and had, therefore, allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 420, 405, 406 Indian Penal Code. The statements of three witnesses were recorded by the Metropolitan Magistrate and by order dated 20th July, 1995 summons were issued to the petitioner and respondent No.3 as according to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, disclosed an oflence under Section 420/422 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the order of summoning, the petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the same on the ground that even if the facts stated in the complaint were accepted in their entirety, they did not constitute any oflence for which the petitioner and respondent No.3 could be summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) The allegations on the basis of which respondents No 2 wanted the petitioner and respondent No 3 to be summoned. have been made in the complaint dated March 27,1993. It would be relevant to reproduce some of the paragraphs which contain the allegations and which according to respondent No.2 constitute an offence punishable under Section 420/422 Indian Penal Code : -