MANMOAHN SINGH GULATI S/O PRITHIPAL SINGH GULATI AND ANOTHER Vs. GULJARI TRIVEDI S/O GANGASAGAR TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking indulgence of this Court under inherent jurisdiction, the Petitioners have come-up challenging the validity of the order dated 23/09/2015 passed by JMFC, Nagda. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has registered a private complaint filed by the Respondent under Section 420 / 34 of IPC.

(2.) The facts as stated by the Petitioners are that Petitioner No.1 is the Director of Comex Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and Petitioner No.2 his son and has no relation with the company. Comex Infratech awarded a contract for construction of road in Ujjain by main contractor company. He sub let the contract (further awarded a petty contract) to the Respondent's company namely Golden Anushree Highways Pvt. Ltd. for construction of the said road. To carry out the contractual work, Rs.70,00,000/- lacs cash and diesel worth Rs.70,00,000/- was provided to the Respondent company. The Respondent insisted for some security also. Petitioner No.1 in good faith, issued some posted dated cheques amounting Rs.48,00,000/- in favour of the Respondent with an understanding that the said cheques were not meant for encashment as the contracted work was not completed by the Respondent and bills/amount were not finalized and the total liability was not settled due to black listing of the main company which awarded the contract to the Petitioner 's company. Owing to failure of the Respondent to execute the contract, the Petitioner terminated the contract. However, some remaining amount could not be paid on time due to black listing of the main company. Due to this nonpayment, the Respondent presented the cheques, which were dishonoured because of insufficient funds.

(3.) The facts stated by the Respondent /complainant are that under the petty contract awarded by the Petitioner's company, he completed the work of Rs.50,00,000/- (fifty lacs). For payment of this work, the Petitioner s issued some post dated cheuqes but the same were bounced due to insufficient funds. The Petitioner s have taken his two water tankers also stating that they will return the same after completion of the work, but later they refused to return them also.