JOY SING RAJPUT Vs. BACHHERAJ DUGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this case pray for quashing their prosecution, started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the opposite party, under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant -opposite party, Bachheraj Dugar, Managing -Director, Merchants' Multi -Purpose Co -operative Society Ltd., Tezpur, filed the complaint on 15 -3 -57, and on receipt of the same, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate issued bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners for their prosecution under the above section.

(2.) THE main contention of Mr. Chose, in Support of the application, is that the complainant, on the face of it, does not disclose any criminal offence. If that is so, then obviously the prosecution of the petitioners could not be sustained and would amount to an abuse of the processes of the Court. If, on the other hand, the complaint does disclose an offence against the petitioners, then this Court would be reluctant to interfere at this stage and quash the prosecution started against them. The relevant portion of the complaint may be reproduced thus:

(3.) MR . Chose contends that although the facts alleged may constitute a civil liability, there is nothing to indicate that there was any mens rea on the part of the petitioners in making the supply, or that they deliberately did so with a view to gain any illegal profit. Priina facie, the contention does not appear to be sound. The question whether there was actually mens rea or not, would depend upon the evidence to be led in the case; but on the facts as they appear in the said petition, it cannot be said definitely that the existence of mens rea was entirely excluded.