MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD Vs. AMIT ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 17. 08. 2001 passed by the learned Second Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in an un-numbered Cr. Case No. 0/01.

(2.) BRIEFIY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 M/s Amit Electronics filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondent No. 2 (Ashok Batra) before the Court below for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Their case in the complaint (Ex. P/l 3) is that the petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer of electronics and electrical goods. The complainant-respondent No. 1 M/s Amit Electronics was their Distributor. The petitioners through their local officials obtained cheque of Rs. 13,76,000/ dated 12. 07. 2000. This cheque was given as a security. This amount was never payable to the petitioner by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was owing and took amount from the petitioner because of which, the respondent issued direction to the Bank for not honouring the said cheque. The petitioner No. 2 personally and on behalf of petitioner No. 1 made a promise to respondent No. 1 on telephone for payment of the balance amount upto 31st July and 30th August, 2000. On the basis of this assurance and promise by the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 Ashok Batra, the complaint-respondent No. 1 allowed encashment of the cheque by issuing pay-order No. 108939 dated 17. 07. 2000 to the tune of Rs. 13,60,478/ from Bank of India, Sanyogitaganj Branch, Indore. For this purpose, on behalf of petitioner No. l,petitionerno. 2gavealetter dated 17. 07. 2000 to the complainant-respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 2 are the Executive Officers of petitioner No. 1.

(3.) IT has also been alleged in the complainant that in the letter dated 17. 07. 2000, the petitioner No. 1 has admitted the claim of the amount mentioned therein, but inspite of repeated demands, the same has not been paid till date of filing of the complaint. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 after making false promise with dishonest intention for paying the amount of Rs. 2,32,688/after inducing the complainant-respondent No. 1 got the pay-order dated 17. 07. 2000 for Rs. 13,60,478/- and when he asked for fulfilment of their promise and assurance, the petitioners and respondent No. 2 had replied that they had recovered their a'mount and not they are not going to pay any balance amount in favour of respondent No. 1 and he can take any action he likes.