RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of an order made by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 6.4.2005, and all further criminal proceedings.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as "complainant"), in a complaint under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code filed on 31.3.2005 alleged that the petitioner was guilty of having committed offences under Sections 420/467/468/471 & 501 read with 120-B/34 IPC. It was alleged that the complainant was dishonestly induced by the accused persons to deliver valuable goods namely, textile yarn. It was alleged that the accused had approached the complainant to deliver goods to M/s Fisba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. alleged to be registered with Sales Tax Authorities. It was alleged by the complainant that the accused also held out that goods could be purchased without payment of tax, against ST-1 Forms. According to the complainant a copy of the registration certificate of Fisba Enterprises was handed over, to the latter. Apparently on the strength of the representations, goods were delivered and some payments were made.

(3.) In the course of the transactions Rs. 14,15,000/- was paid through cheques but upon presentation, they were dishonoured. The complainant alleged that the petitioner induced him to present the cheques again; upon doing so they were dishonoured. The complaint further alleged that in spite of requests ST-1 Forms were not released and the Sales Tax Officer levied tax @ 4% on the goods supplied. It was also averred that during February/March, 2005 the registration certificate issued, was verified and found to be false; according to the allegation the sales tax authorities informed the complainant that no certificate evidencing sales tax registration in favour of Fisba Enterprises was in existence. It was, therefore, alleged that the certificate was forged and used with dishonest intent, to induce the complainant to part with valuable property. The complainant further alleged that he was threatened and intimidated on 31.3.2005.