MANOJ RATHI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashment of the proceedings and order dated 26.08.2013 passed in G.R.Case No.381 of 2013 under Section 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, District: North 24 Parganas.

(2.) THE factual backdrop of the event giving rise to this petition is that the O.P.No.2 had placed orders for supplying 100 numbers of DELL Desktop Computers on 19.01.2013 on the quotation amounting to Rs.27,95,208/ - (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Two Hundred Eight only) with the said company as total costs for 100 Desktop for delivery to the O.P.No.2 on the terms and conditions that all payments to be made in favour of the petitioners, 10% advance along with P.O. and that delivery will be within one month from the date of release of P.O. and payment. In course of discussion with the petitioners it was settled that payment be made 10% in advance and balance 90% be made after delivery within 21 days in 3 cheques and on 19.01.2013 the O.P. No.2 submitted the work orders for a total price of Rs.27,95,208/ -. Since no objection was received from the petitioner/accused in respect of varied terms and conditions in quotation, the O.P.No.2 made contact with the petitioners over phone and requested them to collect the cheque of Rs.2,80,000/ - as advance. Accordingly the petitioner No.2 came to the office of the O.P.No.2 and he handed over the quotation along with the cheque to the petitioner No.2.

(3.) MR . Debasish Roy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the facts, stated in the written complaint, FIR and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., even if accepted as it is, do not constitute offence under Section 406 of the IPC. He further contended that the terms and conditions of the quotation were that (i) 100% advance along with purchase orders; (ii) deliveries will be one month from the date of release of P.O. and payment and (iii) all payments to be made in favour of "Diamond Infotech Private Limited" payable at Kolkata. But the O.P. No.2 did not follow such terms and conditions and he forwarded a quotation stating varied terms and conditions and he sent a cheque of Rs. 2,80 -,000/ - being 10% payment in advance which again was faulty. That is why such cheque was not presented in the bank and he was duly intimated and the cheque was returned. He contended yet further that the alleged facts and circumstances and the allegation made in the complaint and the case diary statements make out no offence at all far to speak of establishing an offence under Section 406 IPC. Even the worst view of the matter is taken it might give rise to a case of breach of contract.