RAMINDER SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMINDER Singh and Baldev Singh, petitioners who were partners of M/s Birendra Steel Industries, Bhawanigarh have come up in this criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr. PC for quashing of the complaint dated 10-2-89 and the summoning order dated 22-7-89, passed by Sh. Hukam Chand, Judicial Magistrate I Class, Amloh.

(2.) IN the impugned complaint, it is alleged that the complainant is carrying on business of iron merchant and commission agent at Mandi Gobindgarh. The complainant entered into business dealings with the petitioners in January 1988. The petitioners had agreed to purchase finished goods (Bars), weighing about 50 M.T. and it made a representation, assuring the complainant that the price of goods would be paid through payee's account cheque. On this representation, the following goods were supplied and delivered to the petitioners :- Vide Bill No. Date Weight Q.Kg. Value 7 21.1.1998 165-45 1,29,787-25 8 22.1.1998 165-20 1,29,682-00 9 24.1.1998 150-10 1,21,905-75 Totalling to Rs. 3,80,766-00 At the time of delivery of goods on 24-1-1988, Raminder Singh issued a cheque for Rs. 3,80,766/- covering the price thereof. The cheque was drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank. Assurance was given that the cheque would be honoured on presentation as he had sufficient amount lying in that Bank. When presented, the cheque was dishonored with, the remarks "no Account." Both the petitioners had dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver the finished goods and had misappropriated the goods and thus, committed an offence under Sections 420/406, IPC.

(3.) THE fact that a civil suit had been instituted by the complainant and Jaswinder Singh, on behalf of the firm, M/s Upper Steel and Agro Industries, Iron and Commission Agents, Mandi Gobindgarh has not been disputed. This suit was instituted on 31-5-1988 and is based on the same transactions of sale of goods and non-payment of price. There are two facts to be considered in favour of the petitioners Firstly, that a previously instituted complaint had been dismissed for default and a second complaint on the same facts could not lie unless some special facts were disclosed and secondly, the dispute between the parties was of a civil nature and the criminal forum cannot be allowed to be used for settling a dispute of a civil nature.