AMIT PAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dtd. 26/11/2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Dehradun, in criminal case no. 1744-A of 2009, State vs Amit Pal and another, under Ss. 420 of IPC, as also the charge sheet dtd. 22/3/2009 along with the consequential proceedings of aforesaid criminal case pending in the selfsame court.

(2.) A complaint was lodged by the complainant/respondent no. 2 against the applicants with P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun which was registered under orders of the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C., stating therein that the complainant is proprietor of the firm namely M/s. ATCALL and is engaged in the work of I.T. solutions and call center. In the month of June 2007, applicants came to the complainant and lured him to do business with them. Applicant no. 1 and 2 claimed themselves to be the partners of firm M/s Seven communication and told the complainant that if both the firms work together it will be beneficial for both the firms. On this assurance, complainant got agreed to work with the applicants and when he asked the applicants to execute the agreement they gave him a slip on one pretext or another. The applicants spent lacks of rupees after taking the same from the complainant and purchased computer equipments worth lacs of rupees in his name. When the complainant asked as to who will pay the bill, the applicants told him that they will return the money to the complainant. On said assurance, the complainant paid lacks of rupees to them for purchase of computer equipments. Apart from this, the applicants also employed some employees at Dehradun centre. Even the cheques given by the applicants to these employees in lieu of salary also got dishonored and the monthly salary for the last many months was paid by the complainant himself. In all, the applicants duped the complainant an amount of Rs.65.00 lacs. Thereafter the complainant realized that the applicants after hatching conspiracy caused financial loss to him and that from the very beginning the intention of the applicants was to cheat the complainant. The said complaint was registered under orders of the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as case crime no. 1744-A of 2009, with P.S. Raipur, District Dehradun, under Sec. 420 of IPC against the applicants. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicants for the selfsame offence. Learned Magistrate vide order dtd. 26/11/2009 took cognizance against the applicants and summoned them to face the trial in respect of offence punishable under Sec. 420 of IPC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants are the partners of M/S. seven communication, ES-12, Civil Lines Jalandhar, Punjab. They had taken two premises on rent from Mr. Harish Marwah, father of the complainant, and had been running a quality control center at 18 New Road, Dehradun and also at the campus known as 'Marwah and Company', Raipur Road, Adhoaiwala, Dehradun. Learned counsel for the applicants would further submit that it was the complainant himself, who obtained the work from M/s Seven Communications and offered to invest the money. The applicants agreed to run the business on the basis of commission from the complainant. The applicants belong to Jalandhar, Punjab and, as such, it was not possible for them to personally manage and control the said centers at Dehradun. The complainant, who is son of landlord Mr. Harish Marwah and is Proprietor of M/s. ATCALL, offered to manage and supervise the said centers on behalf of the applicants during their absence and the applicants accepted such offer on oral arrangement. The applicants employed a number of workers to execute the job work at the said centers. The applicants used to send a number of blank, undated, signed cheques to the complainant in good faith for payment of the salary to the staff employed by the applicants at the said centers and also towards payment of rent of said premises. The applicants invested a huge amount in the aforesaid business, but the complainant, who was looking after the work did not pay any commission amount to the applicants. In fact, it was the complainant, who played fraud upon the applicants.