RATAN KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to quashment of complaint, copy whereof is Annexure P I, and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dhuri, dated 4th December, 1989, copy whereof is Annexure P-2 for summoning the present petitioners as accused, on the basis of the said complaint under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for disposal of ibis case, as emerge, on the basis of the complaint filed by Paw an Kumar Garg, are that he and his brother Prem Chand entered into an oral agreement with the accused (Present petitioners) for purchase of Modi Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory situated at Nabha in March, 1989. Om Parkash, Rajnish Bansal and Kewal Krishan were also present at the time when the alleged oral agreement of sale was entered into, and in consequence thereof, the complainant and his brother Prem Chand paid Rs. 65,000/- to each of the accused vide Bank Drafts No. 290560/ 296/89 and 290561/297/89 dated 21-3-1989 drawn on Punjab National Bank and payable to the accused at Delhi. The payment of these two drafts was received by the accused It was further pleaded that the complainant and his brother obtained two more draft Nos. 290576/ 321/89 and 290 577/322/89 dated 28 3-1989 valued at Rs. one lakh each from Punjab National Bank, Dhuri. and one draft was payable to each of accused. On 22nd April, 1989, Naresh Kumar Modi accused came to the complainant at Dhuri and returned the two drafts of Rs. one lakh each in its original condition, whereas the ether two drafts of Rs. 65,000/' each were obtained by the accused from Punjab National Bank, Green Park Extension, Delhi payable to the complainant at Dhuri In this way, the accused wanted to return the earnest money which they had obtained from the complainant and his brother. At the time, Naresh Kumar Modi accused made rep- resentation to the complainant and his brother in the presence of Chander Bhan and Yash Paal of Dburi that some differences had cropped up between the co-owners which were likely to be resolved soon and in that case the drafts, which he was returning, would again be accepted as earnest money. The complainant and his brother had faith in the accused that they would honour their commitments. However, after about ten days, the complainant and his brother came to know that the sale deed has been executed by the accused regarding the Modi Mill at Nabha qua their share in favour of Muni Lal and Lal Chand of Nabha The complainant and his brother again approached the accused, but the accused was not available for few days and later on, they asked the complainant and his brother to wait for another fifteen days. Ultimately, the accused refused to oblige the complainant and his brother in the first week of June. Thereafter the complainant and his brother presented the drafts in the Punjab National Bank at Dhuri. but the bank authorities told the complainant and his brother that the payment of two drafts valued at Rs. 65,000/- each, had already been referred by the Delhi Branch and consequently the Delhi Branch advised the back authorities at Dhuri not to make payment of those drafts. The accused represented to the Delhi Branch that the drafts have been misplaced or lost, and they have received the payment b\ getting the duplicate drafts prepared. In this way, the complainant and his brother have been fraudulently cheated of Rs. 1, 30,000/

(3.) THE learned counsel for the parties were heard.