PRAVESH V JETHWANI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the accused/petitioner for quashing the proceedings in connection with the complaint case no.25089 of 2009 under Section 418/420 read with 120B of the I.P.C. pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Eighth Court, Calcutta and all orders passed therein including the order dated 29.07.2009 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to issue process, inter alia, against the petitioner herein.

(2.) The opposite party no.2 filed the complaint case no.25089 of 2009 under Sections 418/420 of the I.P.C. read with Section 120B of the said Court stating, inter alia, that the complainant carries on business of manufacturing polyethyline pipes and fittings under the name of a concern, namely, M/s. Din Polymers. The accused no.1 is the proprietor of M/s. Ravi Enterprise, a proprietorship concern having its offence at 11, Pollock Street, Third Floor, Calcutta 700 001. The accused no.2 is a partner of M/s. Versions Trading Co., a partnership firm, situated in Dubai. Both the accused nos.1 and 2 made all the transactions with the complainant representing the abovenamed concern and firm respectively. In June, 2003 the accused no.1 requested the complainant to place orders for supply of raw materials. Then the complainant agreed to enter into business transactions with the conditions that (1) the accused must supply a sample and or specification of the ordered raw materials and (2) the supplied material must satisfy international quality and standard as per specification and exported through shipment conforming all formalities and international standard.

(3.) The complainant placed orders for supply of PVC rasin of German origin. The accused persons by their invoice dated 28.07.2003 agreed to supply the materials at a consideration value determined by the parties. Those materials were despatched by the accused persons and on arrival of the same, the complainant took necessary steps for taking the materials but at the time of unloading the materials the complainant noticed that the materials supplied by the accused contain other chemicals which were not matching with the specification. The packing did not bear any slip or batch number which could confirm that the production was made in Germany. There was shortage of bags also and several bags were found in torn condition etc. Immediately, the complainant issued several letters to the accused no.1, the Indian representative of the accused no.2 intimating him about the shortage as well as bogus materials. The accused persons avoided her on various false pleas for which the complainant was constrained to file a civil suit and she got an order of injunction against which the accused no.2 preferred an appeal before the Honble High court which is still pending. As the materials of inferior quality were supplied, the complainant suffered loss.