P K POUNRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings in Crime No. 33 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) Pursuant to direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of learned Judicial Magistrate I, Coimbatore and at the instance of the second respondent, the case in Crime No. 33 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent stands registered for offences under sections 417 and 420 IPC. The case of the second respondent is that it, M/s. MPS Steel Casting (P) Ltd., is a private limited company engaged in the business of iron and steel. This petitioner, the sole accused in the case, approached its Managing Director at his previous residence at Coimbatore in June 2008 and offered supplies of iron ore at prevailing market rates, to be used at the company's sponge and power generation plant at Kanjikode, Palakkad, Kerala. Though the complainants Managing Director initially was hesitant to deal with the petitioner, the petitioner through frequent visits gained his confidence and an oral agreement for supply of iron ore was entered into in July 2008. Such agreement, which was entered into at the company's Managing Directors residence at Coimbatore, was admitted in the petitioners letter dated 25.10.2008 and 26.11.2008. Having agreed to supply not less than one lakh MTS of iron ore of required quality at the prevailing market rate, the petitioner/accused suddenly demanded an advance sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. Trusting the petitioner/accused, the said sum was transferred by the complainant through RTGS. The petitioner/accused was liable to supply iron ore at the prevailing market rate and at mutually agreed rate of Rs.1,300/- per metric ton plus 2% Central Sales Tax for a quantity of 5000 metric tons and at Rs.1,600/- per metric ton plus 2% Central Sales Tax for quantity of 10000 metric tons, totaling a quantity of 15000 metric tons. As admitted by the petitioner/accused in his letter dated 26.12.2008, he had supplied only 10900/- metric tons and raised invoices therefor at the agreed rates as also collected Central Sales Tax payable thereupon. The complainant has alleged that a sizeable quantum of supplies were of inferior quality resulting in its suffering production losses. The complainant suffered financial loss as also loss of reputation with its customers owing to quality issues. The complainant took up the issue with the petitioner/accused under written communication dated 27.08.2008, annexing therewith the quality inspection report of its laboratory. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused failed to effect supplies and on several occasions, the trucks sent at the behest of the complainant for loading supplies, as per the very request of the accused under letter dated 25.10.2008, were returned unloaded on flimsy grounds. The communication of the Lakshmipura Nagareeka Hitharaksha Samithi dated 09.01.2009 would show that no opposition had been raised by the villagers as stated by the petitioner/accused. The complainant suffered huge losses by way of halting charges paid to truck operators. Several requests and reminders, both written and oral, towards payment of complainants advance amount, upon the accused failure to supply the agreed quantum of 100000 metric tons went unheeded despite the complainant spelling out the various difficulties faced by it. Instead of supplying the balance iron ore or returning the excess amount of advance in a sum of Rs.3.35 crores, the petitioner under letters dated 25.10.2008 and 26.12.2008 made false and untenable claims. Under letters dated 26.12.2008 and 06.01.2009, a false and imaginary price of Rs.9,990/- per metric ton for further supplies was informed. The petitioner also made a false claim of crushing charges for iron ore supplies which never was discussed or agreed to between the parties. Thus, the petitioner/accused had unjustly enriched himself in a sum of Rs.3.35 crores. Informing dishonest inducements by the petitioner/accused and that various communications between the parties, the bank transactions of the complainant, the letter received from its bankers, statement of supply and account of transactions, letter of offers issued by the area authorities of the accused operating area and letter received from the complainant's transporter, clinchingly would prove the malafide intention of the petitioner/accused from the inception of business transaction between them, offence under Sections 417 and 420 IPC were alleged.

(3.) Heard Mr. V.Gopinath, learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also Mr. A.Ramesh, learned senior counsel for second respondent.