RAVINDRA MADANLAL GOENKA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner seeks to quash the F.I.R. registered against him.

(2.) The facts are as follows - Petitioner is a Broker. Respondent no.3 is a Proprietor of Ginning and Pressing Factory. On 6/4/2006 and 11/3/2006 the petitioner purchased 50 cotton bales on each date. The delivery was taken on the spot. The value of the goods was Rs.6,58,687/-. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also placed an order for further 1200 bales of cotton with respondent no.3 and one Umeshchandra Hage. Said transaction took place on 24/4/2006. Out of 1800 bales to be purchased, 1200 bales were to be purchased from respondent no.3 and 600 bales from Umeshchandra. Fax was sent to that effect to both respondent no.3 and Mr.Umeshchandra Hage. The transaction, however, did not materialise. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled for damages due to the difference in the rate. Later, the petitioner contacted respondent no.3 and Mr.Hage and they admitted that they would pay Rs.4,80,000/- towards the damages. The amount was not paid. On the other hand, the petitioner had paid Rs.1,00,000/- to respondent no.3. Since the petitioner started demanding the amount, it is alleged that respondent no.3 lodged a total false report against the petitioner. It is contention of the petitioner that he had, in fact, purchased 100 bales from the respondent no.3. What the respondent no.3 in the report lodged with the police alleged is that the petitioner had sold those bales in his own name at Solapur and appropriated the price thereof. The Police have registered the offence upon the report submitted by respondent no.3 to the effect that the petitioner has misappropriated the price of 100 bales which he received from party in Solapur.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.