UMESH SHAILENDRAKUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein approached this Court seeking indulgence by way of quashing FIR lodged against them before Visnagar Police Station vide C.R.No : I 227/99 by respondent No.3. The facts leading to this petition in short can be stated as under; The petitioners hail from Mathura (U.P.). According to respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred as the complainant), they approached the complainant at Visnagar and stated that they would be able to supply chicory cube and soots at competitive rate and therefore the complainant placed order for 800 metric tone of chicory. Accordingly, amount of Rs.12,00,000.00 came to be paid by the complainant to the petitioners by various demand drafts. According to the complainant, it was promised by the petitioners to the complainant that the goods will be supplied by end of May, 1999 but the petitioners failed to supply the goods. When the complainant asked for the delivery of the goods, the petitioners paid no heed and behaved in rude manner and therefore, the complaint was lodged on 2 1/06/1999. Prior to the complaint, a suit is also filed by the complainant for recovery of Rs.12 lakhs with interest being Special Civil Suit No : 113 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) at Mehsana. In that suit, an application under Order 38 Rule 5 for attachment before the judgment was tendered which is still pending. It is the case of the complainant further that the petitioners have entered into a contract with the Nestle India and are not honouring their earlier commitment although money is paid by the complainant.

(2.) The petitioners herein have come with a case that they have already supplied the goods as per the agreement and in fact, the value of the goods supplied comes to Rs.13,83,000.00 and therefore amount of Rs.1.83 lakhs is to be recovered by the petitioner from the complainant. In order to substantiate their version, the petitioners have produced a statement at Annexure-B to show the details of the goods supplied by them.

(3.) The complainant - respondent No.3 came before this Court with application for vacating the interim relief by preferring Miscellaneous Criminal Application No : 4334 of 1999 wherein, certain documents are produced to show that the goods are received by them which are not supplied by the petitioners but by another party who is also allegedly acting in conspiracy with the petitioners. That person is Mukesh Tiwari who happens to be a brother in law of petitioner No.1. It is the case of the complainant that Mukesh Tiwari was paid Rs.9 lakhs and in pursuant to that payment, he has supplied certain goods and the petitioners are trying to take advantage of that supply which was made by Mukesh Tiwari against Rs.9 lakhs received by him. Mukesh Tiwari and the petitioners are acting hands in a glove to damage the interests of the complainant.