ADRASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint case No. 619/2003 titled Shyam Sunder Bansal v. Adrash Gupta & Ors., pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. It has been stated in the petition that even if the allegations made and evidence available on record is considered, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.

(2.) Admittedly, an agreement was executed between Sadashiv Enterprises and Liberty Group, Karnal, on 27th February, 2002 and was signed by Sh. Shyam Sunder Bansal on behalf of Sadashiv Enterprises and by Mr. P.D. Gupta on behalf of Liberty Group. Under the Agreement, Liberty Group was to supply Hawai Chappals of second grade for sale in Delhi. A complaint for cheating, criminal intimidation, extortion and criminal conspiracy was filed by respondent No. 2, Shyam Sunder Bansal, proprietor of Sadashiv Enterprises, against three persons including petitioner Adrash Gupta. It was alleged in the petition that at the behest of accused No. 1 (Adrash Gupta), accused No. 2, Sh. Vivek Gupta had contacted the complainant to become distributor of products of accused No. 1 and several false promises were made and lucrative incentives were offered by them to the complainant, vide agreement which was annexed as Annexure-A to the complaint. It was further alleged that accused No. 1 added the words "second grade" so as to save his skin from impending orders of a court of Law and the accused were successful in selling their unsalable held up stock of second grade spurious products worth over Rs. 1 Crore, whereas the price charged by them was regular full price and not the usual 50% price of second grade items and, thus, they cheated the complainant to the extent of Rs. 1 Crore by compelling him to re-sell the stock at a huge loss. It was also alleged that accused No. 1 and 2 did not increase the M.R.P. printed on their box and started billing the complainant on a hiked purchase price. They also charged 2% Branch Charges from the complainant. Allegations of criminal intimidation and threat were also made in the complaint.

(3.) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 9th January, 2008 took the view that ingredients of Section 503 and 385 of IPC were not made out. He, however, summoned accused No. 1 and 2, i.e. the petitioner and one Mr. Vivek Gupta for the offence u/s 420/34 IPC.