JUDHISTIR DAS Vs. PATITAPABAN HOTA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner one of the accused persons in G.R. Case No. 595 of 1978 in the court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bargarh, has filed this application for quashing the Criminal Proceedings against him. By order dated 36 -2 -1980 charges under Section 420/34, I.P.C. were framed against the Petitioner alleging that he on 24 -9 -1978 Barpali cheated the opposite party by dishonestly inducing him to deliver 350 tins of ground -nut oil valued at Rs. 45,000/ - which was the property of the said opposite party to the Petitioner in furtherance of common intention and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420/34, I.P.C.

(2.) ON these allegations investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted under Section 420/34, I.P.C. the court took cognizance, examined three witnesses and framed charges against the Petitioner and one Sanyasi Rao under the said sections.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in a case of Hiralal Mundra v. Asok Kumar Rasiklal Co. through Ramniklal Dholkia : 39 (1973) C.L.T. 597, wherein the criminal proceedings were quashed. On a perusal of the said decision. I find that it is not comparable on facts. In the said case, the Court on a consideration of the materials on record came to hold that neither the complaint petition nor initial deposition of the complainant made out any offence under Section 420, I.P.C. and no overt act was attributed to the accused in either of them which prima facie establishes making of any representation to the complainant which was false to the knowledge of the accused and which induced the complainant to deliver the goods. Some other circumstances which weighed with the Court in the said case where the delay of three years in instituting the complaint case and filing of a civil suit for realisation of the balance price shortly after instituting the criminal case and also the fact that the accused tried to honour the contract and paid more than half of the price due. These circumstances led the court to hold that he had no criminal intent when he entered into the contract. The facts and circumstances in the present case, as stated earlier, are completely different. Hence, the decision has no application to the present case.