MEHARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed as against the FIR in Crime No.28 of 2018 on the file of the first respondent registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, on the complaint of the second respondent herein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that entire allegations are the business transactions between the petitioners and the second respondent commenced from the year 2015. The entire allegations averd in the complaint did not disclose any offence as registered by the first respondent. He further submitted that there was a yarn business between the petitioners and the second respondent from the year 2015, in which there is an amount due payable by the petitioners and as such it is a civil in nature and no offence is made out as against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners were purchasing yarn from the second respondent from the year 2015-16 to 2018-19, in the petitioners' company in the name and style of Liberty Clothing Company in totaling 506 transactions to the tune of Rs.51,55,54,672/-. Like wise the petitioners' another company viz., M/s. LCC Mill Private Limited were procured yarn from the defacto complainant from the year 2017 to 2019 for the total business 486 transactions to the tune of Rs.23,11,53,714/-. He further submitted that from the above business transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant to the tune of more than Rs.74 cores received from the petitioners clearly establishes routine business transactions. If any dispute arose between them in the routine business transactions, it cannot be termed as commission of criminal offence.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent filed counter and submitted that the second respondent is involved in business of producing and selling hosiery yarn for the past 20 years. The petitioners are running business through a yarn trading company in the name and style of M/s. LCC Mill Private Limited at Tiruppur. During the month of January, 2018, their agent named Chinasamy had approached the second respondent with malafide intention to supply the hosiery yarn and promised to make payment within a period of 15 days. Even then without making any payment they had given promise that after making payment, the next supply of hosiery yarn can be done. Due to their false promise and the inducement of the petitioners, the second respondent/defacto complainant supplied yarn to the value of Rs.1.5 crore, during the second week of January, 2018.