RAVINDRA C MEHTA Vs. MUSTA HUSEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner accused being aggrieved by the process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 356/82 for an offence punishable under S. 420, I.P.C. has moved this Court under S. 482, Cr. P.C for quashing the process on the ground that no offence of cheating is prima facie disclosed

(2.) The complaint alleges that the petitioner who is doing the business of coke and coal in the name of Selected Coal Company and his brother Mohmad Yasim Karamhussain also does the same business in the name of A. Star Coal Depot. Both of them have one common office. The accused is the Managing Director of Bhalkiya Mills Ltd. The complainant has been supplying the coal to different Mills in Ahmedabad as per their orders. It is alleged that the petitioner accused had promised payments of the price of the coal within 15 days and on that assurance the complainant was induced to act and deliver the coal to the Mill Company on 9th and 10th Sept. 1981 of the value of Rs. 37,702.12 ps. and bill for that amount was given to the petitioner on 10th Sept. 1981.

(3.) It is further alleged that the payment was not made within 15 days as promised and the complainant had to remind and had to make futile approaches and the accused used to give promises and on 25th Nov. 1981 a sum of Rs. 2400/- was paid in cash and the accused had asked the complainant to collect a cheque after a few days and thereafter a cheque dt. 8th Dec. 1981 for Rs. 15,000/- was given to the complainant. However, that cheque was returned unpaid by the bank on 10th Dec. 1981 with the remark "refer to drawer". Again the complainant met the accused and informed him about the return of the cheque and again he was assured that he would be paid cash and on 15th Dec. 1981 the accused (complainant) was paid Rs. 2500/- in cash and on 16th Dec. 1981, Rs. 1000/- in cash was paid and was assured that the remaining amount would also be sent soon. Thus the petitioner got only Rs. 5900/- against the promised payment of price of Rs. 37,702.12 ps. it is further alleged that the accused has thereafter bluntly refused the balance payment. It is alleged that the accused had right from the beginning ill-intention of deceiving the complainant and had no intention to make full payment of the price of the goods taken on credit. It is also alleged that the brother of the complainant has also been similarly deceived to the tune of Rs. 71,038/- in respect of the price of the coal sold on credit and his brother is also going to file a separate complaint. It may be mentioned that the complainant is not in a position to state that even after lapse of two years whether his brother had filed the complaint or not. On behalf of the petitioner accused it is stated that the petitioner has not been served with any process and he has no knowledge about such complaint of the brother of the complainant.