SANDEEP KUMAR BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief fact of the case is that the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged an FIR dtd. 18/8/2022 before the Byrnihat Outpost, Ri-Bhoi District, Meghalaya against the petitioner alleging that the respondent No.2 had supplied raw-materials amounting to around Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (rupees one crore) only to the petitioner's factory for conversion of the raw-materials into finished goods almost four years back from the date of filing of the FIR. It was mentioned in the FIR that the value of the raw-materials would not be less than to Rs.1,65,00,000.00 (rupees one crore sixty five lakhs) only as on the date of the filing of the FIR. The respondent No.2 alleged that he was continuously trying to communicate with the petitioner but the petitioner had stopped responding his calls or messages inspite of various reminders. The respondent No.2 stated in the FIR that he was going through a huge financial crisis and also requested for taking of action against the petitioner in order to help him to recover the amount which had been long overdue. On the basis of the FIR, Nongpoh PS Case No.156 (08) 2022 under Sec. 419/420/406 IPC was registered against the petitioner and an investigation was launched in the matter.

(2.) Mr. N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the FIR do not satisfy the ingredient constituting the alleged offences under Ss. 419/420/406 IPC. He contends that even if the entire allegations made in the FIR is accepted as it is, it would not constitute any criminal offence. He submits that the allegation made in the FIR has arisen out of a commercial transaction and is purely a civil dispute. It is further contended that no criminal investigation can be initiated on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR and the same requires to be quashed by this Court.

(3.) Mr. K. Khan, learned PP appearing for the State-respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of offences under Sec. 419/420/406 IPC. He further submits that the allegation of non-response to the calls and messages of the respondent No.2 inspite of acceptance of the supply of raw material is indicative of commission of criminal offence by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has not responded to the notice issued by the investigating authority under Sec. 41A Cr.P.C. and is not cooperating with the investigation and such conduct of the petitioner by itself projects the existence of criminal intention on the part of the petitioner. He submits that there is no merit in the present case and the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.