B. K. SETHI Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B . K. Sethi and his two sons, Girish Sethi and Surinder Sethi, petitioners 1 to 3 to have preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No. 274 dated 30-6-86, for offences under Section 420/120 B. IPC, registered at Police Station South, Chandigarh and the subsequent proceedings.

(2.) THE case was registered on the complaint filed by the Manager Procurement, PUNTEX. It is a State Govt. undertaking and registered under the Companies Act. A resume of the facts may be taken from the .FIR :-

(3.) THE sale being by sample, the purchase committee of the Puntex had enough opportunity of examining the sample and then comparing the goods supplied with the sample. If the goods supplied were not in accordance with the sample, it should have rejected the same outright. It is not the case of the petitioners that the original sample had also been retained and got analysed and the goods supplied were entirely different from the sample shown to the purchase committee. Since the petitioners are not the manufacturers they had to rely upon the warranty given by the manufacturers. It is not disputed at the bar that the contents of the yarn of the cloth could not have been verified except on an analysis. In this situation, the entire dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Criminal Forum cannot be allowed to be used for settling the disputes of civil nature. The petitioners in this case could have been under a genuine mistake about the nature of the cloth being supplied by the manufacturer and there is absence of mens rea. I thus, conclude that no criminal offence is made out, but it is only a civil liability. I hereby allow the criminal miscellaneous and quash the impugned, FIR and the consequent proceedings.