J. VENKATREDDY Vs. S. KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two connected revisions preferred against the orders dated 31.5.1982 by which revisionists have been summoned in Criminal Case No. 190 of 1982 and the order dated 21.7.1982 by which Sri P.S. Verma, Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut issued bailable warrants against the revisionists in Criminal Case No. 190 of 1982. Notices were issued to the opposite parties but no appearance was put in by S. Kumar, Opposite Party No.1. Proprietor of M/s. Co-optex & Powerloom Cloth Manufacturing Company, Near Gujri Bazar, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut. The learned A.G.A. put in appearance for the State of U.P. but no counter affidavit was filed by the learned A.G.A. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. A complaint was filed by the opposite party no. 1 S. Kumar before the Special judicial Magistrate, Meerut against both the present revisionists and Chaudhary Buddha Deo agent to M/s. Ravi Sales Corporation, District Nalgoda, Andhra Pradesh, under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B Indian Penal Code alleging that S. Kumar is proprietor of M/s. Co-optex & Powerloom Cloth Manufacturing Company, that Buddha Deo agent used to procure orders from outside parties and bring the same to Meerut where the orders were booked and given to him (the complainant), that Buddha Deo, agent got the order of the present revisionists booked with it for supply of handloom clothes and order No. 9121 was signed by the said agent and the present revisionist Sri Yada Vaenkat Kishan, Secretary of the Hujur Nagar Co-operative Marketing Society, that the goods were supplied to the revisionist but the revisionists never made any payment for the same and played fraud and wanted to digest the cloth supplied which is an offence under Sec. 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code. The principal plea of the revisionists is that they have made payment for the cloth supplied to the said agent of the complainant M/s. Ravi Sales Corporation. Documentary evidence have been filed in respect of the said payments which properly cover the entire sale price of the cloth. The first information report itself shows that Ravi Sales Corporation was authorised agent of the complainant. No counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 to controvert the allegation that M/s. Ravi Sales Corporation was its authorised agent and that the payment have been made to M/s. Ravi Sales Corporation. That being so the payment to the agent would amount to a payment to the principal. In any case it would be purely matter of civil dispute as far as the present revisionists were concerned. It cannot be said that on the facts stated in the first information report and the material documents placed on record by the revisionists any offence under Sec. 420 or 406 Indian Penal Code can be said to have been constituted. So to allow the proceedings on the first information report to continue as against the present revisionists would defeat the ends of justice. Proper relief may be given under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. These revisions may be treated as petitions under Sec. 482 Criminal Procedure Code. Both the petitions are allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 190 of 1982 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, Sri S.P. Verma, are quashed. It will not affect the proceedings as against M/s. Ravi Sales Corporation or Chaudhary Buddha Deo in pursuance of the said first information report. Petitions Allowed.