YESHWANT C GOLECHA Vs. PRABHU RADHAKRISHNA SRINIVAS VICE PRESIDENTCARGO DIVISION COX AND KINGS INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal application under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for issuing process in Criminal Case No. 1133/S/83 (Misc. Case No. 62 of 1983) on the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 for the offence under section 420 read with section 114 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 complainant is the Vice President of Cargo, Division of Cox & Kings (India) Ltd. having its registered office at Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road, Bombay. The accused are the partners of the firms styled as Fashions Exporters and Garment International, both having their offence at Galta Road, Jaipur. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 are brothers and the accused No. 2 is their sister in law. The accused in the name of their two firms are dealing in ready made garments, handicrafts, etc. for expert purposes. The respondent No. 1 company are clearing and forwarding agents. The accused were doing their export business through the respondent No. 1 and exported goods to various countries.

(3.) In or about April 1983 the respondent No. 1 pointed out to the accused that an amount of Rs. 80,000/- was due from them and they should give assurance from their bankers for payment of the said amount, and accordingly the accused had given the assurance from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jaipur. The Manager of the said Bank gave a letter dated 20th April, 1983, stating that the amount of the respondent No. 1 would be paid after receiving the collection proceeds from abroad. The accused informed the respondent No. 1 that it had authorised its bankers to make payment of the said amount of Rs. 80,000/- after the recovery of their dues from abroad. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that soon thereafter, without making payment of their dues, the accused surreptitiously withdrew the bank guarantee and stopped business with it. According to the respondent No. 1, it indicated that the accused cheated it of large sums of money for the work of which it had paid its own money for freight, customs duty and all other things, apart from their fees for services. On those averments the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process. That process has been challenged by the petitioner accused in this Court.