GAJRAJ JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GAJRAJ Jain is aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate summoning him to face trial as an accused for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in a complaint filed by Sh. K.K. Gupta as karta of K.K. Gupta & Sons (HUF).

(2.) THE complainant alleged that for the reasons stated in the complaint offence under Section 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code were made out. However, as noted above, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has summoned the accused persons to face trial only in respect of the offence under Section 420 IPC.

(3.) IT was further stated in the complaint that as no amount was paid he caused to be served upon the company a notice of demand dated 9.7.1999. No amount being released he was compelled to approach the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection Act for payment of the amount due. That during pendency of the said complaint he received an assurance that the amount would be refunded in installments and in respect thereof, Kulbhushan, an Executive Director of the Company issued to him a letter dated 7.7.2000 informing that if he unconditionally withdrew the complaint before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission the company would refund the amount to him with interest but in installments of Rs. 25,000/ - per month. Accordingly, he withdrew the complaint filed by him before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, but no amount was paid to him.