LILASONS BREWERIES LTD Vs. SUJATA MANJARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioners, who are the accused persons in I. C. C. No. ll of 1993 of the court of learned S. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar instituted by the opposite party-complainant, have made prayer in this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 12. 3. 2007 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 406 I. P. C. and issuing summons to the petitioners. ,

(2.) CASE of the opposite party complainant is that accused No. 1 is a registered company engaged in manufacture and sale of breweries in the brand name of "khajuraho super Strong Lager Beer" and accused No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company. The company is situated and the opposite party No. 2 is residing at Bhopal in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They entered with an arrangement with the complainant by letter dated 24. 12. 2000 for the purpose of marketing and sales promotion of their product through the Orissa State Beverage Corporation. As per the arrangement, the complainant was to deposit Rs. 24,00,000 with the accused persons as security deposit which was to be refunded within 20 days from the date of termination of the agreement along with any other dues payable to the complainant. As per the agreement/arrangement the complainant is to receive commission at the rate of Rs. 28 on sale of each case of beer. As required by the accused persons the complainant deposited rs. 24,00,000 through bank draft. In between 2000-01 to 2004-05 the complainant carried out marketing and sales promotion entitling her to receive Rs. 30,38,000 as commission. However, she is yet to receive rs. 8,15,375 out of the commission due to her. As the accused persons discontinued supply of products to Orissa, the complainant decided to withdraw from the arrangement and accordingly intimated the accused no. l. Accused No. l remitted Rs. 13,00,000 on 7. 12. 2005 towards refund of security deposit. On 9. 12. 2005 the complainant sent a letter to accused No. 2 demanding refund of balance amount of Rs. 19,15,375 i. e. balance security of Rs. 11,00,000 and balance commission of Rs. 8,15,375. It is alleged that accused No. l sent letter dated 31. 12. 2005 admitting the claim of the complainant but expressed inability to pay the amount on the ground that dues from Orissa State Beverage corporation have not been received. The complainant sent a lawyer's notice on 16. 6. 2006 to which the accused persons sent reply dated 5. 7. 2006 stating that balance claim amount of Rs. 11,00,000 would be paid soon after the amount is refunded by the orissa State Beverage Corporation. In the background of such factual averments it is alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons induced the complainant to accept the promotion-ship of their product as it was lucrative in the market and as per their inducement the complainant had deposited Rs. 24,00,000 with the Orissa state Beverage Corporation. However, with ulterior motive accused persons stopped payment of the balance security of Rs. 11,00,000 and commission amounting to Rs. 8,15,375 for which they are liable to be proceeded for commission of offences of cheating under Section 420 i. P. C. and misappropriation under Section 406 I. P. C. On receipt of the complaint petition on 7. 2. 207 learned s. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar posted the case to 26. 2. 2007 for recording of initial statement of the complainant. On 26. 2. 2007 complainant's initial statement was recorded and the case was posted for enquiry to 12. 3. 2007 on which date the case was adjourned for enquiry to 20. 3. 2007. On 20. 3. 2007 the complainant declined to adduce any evidence in the enquiry and the case was posted for order on 21. 3. 2007 when the impugned order was passed.

(3.) IN assailing the legality of the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. Firstly, it was contended that as the petitioners-accused persons resided at a place beyond the area in which the learned SDJM, bhubaneswar exercises his jurisdiction, issue of processes against the accused persons without receiving any evidence in course of enquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C. is illegal and is liable to be quashed. Secondly, it was argued that a plain reading of the complaint petition as well as initial statement of the complainant clearly shows that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Even if the averments made in the complaint petition are accepted on face value, legations contained therein do not indicate commission of offence of either cheating or misappropriation. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon decision of this Court in Jagadish Prasad Padhy v. K. Nageswar Senapathy and Anr.