YOGENDRA VASUPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the final report filed by the respondent police for the offence under Sec. 420 of IPC r/w 34 of IPC.

(2.) The crux of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the Directors of Inasra Technologies Private Limited and have given the job of looking after the advertisement of his company to the defacto complainant proprietorship called Aditya of Jigsaw Advertising and Solutions. The main service of the company is Outdoor Advertisement, Airline sheet baggage, tag Advertisement and also consultancy. The accused/petitioners, in the year 2015 sought services of the defacto complainant for Outdoor and Airline Advertisement from the month of January 2016 to June 2016. As per the order, the defacto complainant has raised the bill from February 2016 till May 2016 totally to the tune of Rs.1,69,36,735.00. However, after availing the services, the petitioners had not paid the amount. On the other hand, they caused criminal intimidation to the defacto complainant. Thereby, they committed offence under Ss. 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there is no offence made out and final report itself would indicate that there were business dealings between the parties from the year 2014 and final report has been filed only with regard to the pending bills relating to the year 2016. Though, there were business transactions to the tune of Rs.8.00 crores, more than Rs.6.00 crores has already been paid. Only some defaults were made in subsequent years, thereby, a criminal case has been pressed into service. Hence, it is his contention that there is no deception played by the petitioners/accused to constitute any offence under Sec. 420 of IPC. Similarly, mere non-payment of certain amount in the business transaction will not constitute any offence under Sec. 420 of I.P.C. Therefore, even the proceedings filed by the mother of the respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly indicates that the criminal case is not with regard to the recovery of money but only with regard to the alleged threat made by the petitioners. Therefore, the entire case is nothing but abuse of process of law and do not constitute any offence. Hence, the same has to be quashed.