PUNAM JAIN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicants -original accused nos. 3 to 6 to quash and set aside the impugned complaint/FIR being CR.No. I -183 of 2005 registered at Chhani Police Station, Vadodara for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 409, 415, 418, 420 r/w Section 120 B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) RESPONDENT no.2 herein -original complainant -Gujarat State Fertilezer and Chemicals Limited had lodged the impugned FIR against the petitioners and others at Chhani Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 409, 415, 418, 420 r/w Section 120 B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging inter alia, that original accused no.7 partnership firm M/s. Sultanchand Bimalprakash purchased the goods worth Rs.33,15,32,000/ - during the period between 1.4.1994 to 31.10.2005 out of which they have paid a total sum of Rs.30,71,77,000/ - by selling such goods and there were dues of Rs.5,02,31,000/ - accused persons have not paid despite their repeated promises and thereby they have entered into the criminal conspiracy with a view to cause financial loss to the complainant company and utilizing the said amount for themselves, thus committed the offence of breach of trust and cheating etc. It is further alleged in the said FIR that original accused nos. 1,3 and 7 were appointed as agent and agreement was entered into between them with the complainant company on 10.11.1983 and they were appointed as agent to sell the Nylon 6 goods of the complainant company, and the accused nos. 4,5 and 6 -petitioner nos.1 to 3 herein were associated with accused no.7 partnership firm. That thereafter, the accused no.3 retired as a partner of the accused no.7 partnership firm in the year 2005 and fresh agreement came to be entered into on 6.3.2005 between original accused nos. 1,2 and 7. That even thereafter, also the goods were supplied despite the dues were there but on assurance/promises given by the accused persons that they will clear the arrears and relying upon those promises the complainant carried on the business with the accused persons and supplied goods even thereafter. It is further alleged in the complaint that despite repeated promises, payment of the aforesaid amount was not made to the complainant company and the goods supplied by the complainant came to be sold by the accused persons and the amount so released came to be used by them. Therefore, it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Sections 403, 405, 409, 415, 418, 420 r/w Section 120 B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned FIR, the petitioners -original accused nos. 3 to 6 have preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

(3.) SHRI P.M. Thakkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged. It is submitted that as such the petitioners no. 1 to 3 herein -original accused nos. 4 to 6 are concerned, they have already retired as partners of the original accused no.7 partnership firm as far as back on 31.12.1997 and even thereafter also the complainant company doing business with the accused no.7 partnership firm with remaining partners and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners no. 1 to 3 have committed the offences as alleged. It is further submitted that even the petitioner no.4 herein -accused no.3 is concerned, he also retired as partner of the accused no.7 partnership firm on 31.3.2003 and even thereafter also complainant company continued the business with the accused no.7 partnership firm. It is further submitted that even so stated in the FIR after the accused no.3 retired as partner there was an agreement with the original accused nos. 1, 2 and 7 and thereafter business continued. Therefore, it is submitted that even the petitioner no.4 -original accused no.3 has also not committed any offence.