RAMESH KUMAR Vs. PARMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P-1 dated March 13, 1988, under sections 420/306/467/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh.

(2.) THE relevant facts. briefly stated, are that Parmod Kumar, partner of Messrs Baikunth Nath Goyal and Sons, Gobindgarh, filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners alleging that the accused were partners of a firm M/s. Jagat Ram Tilak Raj, Jawala Ji, district Kangra, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On April 11, 1981, they came to the complainant's shop and purchased rounds worth Rs. (62,79-)and promised to pay the price within 10 days. The accused, however, failed to make the said payment within the stipulated period. On May 16, 1987, two bank drafts of Rs. 20,000/each where received by the complainant firm. They could not be got cashed as they were not correctly prepared. The complainant pursued the matter by a personal visit and he was assured that the payment would he made within 213 days. The accused further told the complainant that not only that the payment would be made, but the accused would come and place a further order for more material. On May 19, 1987, Ramesh Kumar and Sham Kumar accused came to the shop of the complainant with track No. PPG-3287 and represented that Tilak Raj the third partner, was following them along with the bank draft and the outstanding payment would be cleared and they further purchased material worth Rs. 80, 76.60 and had it loaded in the truck. The complainant took the accused on their word and he went away from the shop for a short while and in his absence the accused persons went away with the truck and the material loaded in it, without making any payment. Ultimately, after notice, the complainant filed both a civil suit as well as the aforesaid complaint. The accused seek quashing of the complaint.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, is that the filing of the civil suit was no indication that this was a dispute of a civil nature A sizeable amount of money was involved and it is manifest that even if the accused are convicted and sentenced, the complainant cannot be expected to give up his claim for the recovery of the money. He invited particular attention to the allegations made in para 7 of the complaint that on the second occasion the material worth over Rs. 80,000/- was obtained from the complainant on the representation that the third partner was on his way with the bank draft and availing themselves of absence of the complainant for a short while, the accused had run away with the material.