RAVINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, CrPC.

(2.) FACTS requisite for the disposal of this application are these: M/s. Kamla Agencies, Aligarh is a firm which works as whole-sale dealer in Fertilizers. J. B. Mathur, opposite party No. 2, is one of its partners. Ravindra Kumar and his father, H. N. Maheshwari, applicants, are partners of a firm called Ravsons (India). The firm of the applicants deals as a retailer in Fertilizers. On 8-6-1974 the applicants' firm deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as security with M/s. Kamla Agencies and thereby became a dealer of Kamla Agencies. On 11-6- 1974 Ravindra Kumar took 300 bags of urea and towards payment of their price he gave a cheque of Rs. 30,630.90. On the same date he took further 289 bags of urea and gave a cheque of Rs. 29507. 53. Then on the same date he took 459 bags of amonium sulphate nitrate and gave a cheque of Rs. 26,940.93, Key of the godown was handed over to Ravindra Kumar and he took away all the bags from the godown of Kamla Agencies on 11-6-1974. In the morning on 12-6-1974 Ravindra Kumar applicant No. 1 requested J. B. Mathur, opposite party No. 2, not to present the three cheques to the Bank saying that he would make payment of all the bags taken by him in cash within 4-6 days. But Ravindra Kumar did not make payment as promised. On 2-1-1975 opposite party No. 2 made a report to the Superintendent of Police, Aligarh (annexure 1 to the affidavit of Natthi Lal, pairokar of the applicants). In this report opposite party No. 2 clearly stated that Ravindra Kumar assured him that the cheques were good for payment. The police submitted a final report on 19-1- 1975. Thereafter on 12-5-1975 opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint against Ravindra Kumar applicant No. 1 in the court of Munsif-Magistrate, Havali, Aligarh, (copy annexure 2 to the affidavit of Natthi Lal). In this complaint he alleged that Ravindra Kumar gave him false assurance that the cheques would be honoured. The Criminal Case which arose on the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13-5-1976 because Sri J. B. Mathur (complainant) did not appear before the Magistrate on that date. On 6-8-1976, i. e., after about 3 months of the dismissal of the first complaint, opposite party No. 2 filed a fresh complaint in which he not only impleaded Ravindra Kumar but also impleaded H. N. Maheshwari, applicant No. 2. It further transpires that the matter was prosecuted with the police and on 8-1-1976 the police submitted a charge sheet against both the applicants. Now the criminal case is pending before the Magistrate. The charge sheet submitted by the police and the second complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 have been consolidated as required by Section 210 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate has framed charges against the applicants. Some evidence has been recorded in the case.

(3.) IN the result, the application is partly allowed in this way that the criminal proceedings against H. N. Maheshwari, applicant No. 2, are quashed.