BINABEN JITENDRABHAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the original accused. She seeks quashing of complaint at Annexure A being Criminal Case No.520 of 2003 of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13, Ahmedabad. In the complaint, the complainant has stated, inter alia, that the accused had placed orders for supply of cotton between June 1997 and 15.8.97 total worth Rs.96,32,052/-. Though assured that the payment would duly be made, despite reminders and requests by the complainant, no payment was made. She had thus cheated the complainant and committed offence punishable under section 406, 420, 506(2) read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint was filed nearly six years after the alleged incident. The dispute is purely of civil nature. Previously also, the compliant in writing was given to the police in the year 2000. The complaint is, therefore, not maintainable. He relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions : B.Ramesh v. State of Gujarat, 1997(1) GLH 360. Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 2341. Pepsi Foods Ltd. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749. T.T.Antony v State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181.

(3.) Upon perusal of the complaint, it clearly emerges that for the alleged transactions of the year 1997 and for non-payment of the goods received during the said period, the complaint came to be lodged in the year 2003. Apparently, there were business relations between the complainant and the accused. In course of such business relations, orders were placed for purchase of raw material (cotton). Payment for such goods received, however, were allegedly not made by the petitioner. It was on this basis the complaint came to be lodged. Admittedly, the complaint was filed nearly six years after supply of the goods. Predominantly, the allegations pertained to civil dispute. If any amount remained outstanding, the complaint could have filed a civil suit. However, long after the period of limitation of filing suit had expired, he resorted to criminal proceedings. Permitting investigation and trial on such complaint would amount to abuse of process of law. The complaint being Criminal Case No.520/2003 of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad is therefore quashed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.