BHARAT BHUSHAN MEHRA Vs. BIRBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHARAT Bhushan Mehra petitioner is broker of yarn synthetic waste and fibre at Bombay. In the month of October 1988 he brought about an agreement between M/s Gopal Dass Jagat Ram Private Limited, Ludhiana respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.L. Daga of M/s Daga Fibre Private Limited respondent No. 2. As per this agreement, respondent No. 2 was to supply 400 MT of 100 per cent synthetic waste to respondent No. 1 and the supply was to be made before 31st December, 1988 with the stipulation that respondent No. 1 could extent the delivery period or could claim Rs. 2/- per kg. as buyers profit for that bargain in case the delivery was not made within the specified period. Respondent No. 2 could not supply the total quantity of the material according to the terms of the agreement. So respondent No. 1 extended period of supply of material upto 15.1.1989 vide letter dated 26.12.1988. A dispute arose between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 with regard to the quality of the goods supplied and respondent No. 1 instituted a civil suit in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Ludharana for the recovery of Rs. 6,37,426.50 on account of profit-cum-damages for non-supply of the goods and he also claimed Rs. 66,929-78 by was of interest. Subsequently respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as respondents No. 2 and 3 under Section 420/12OB Indian Penal Code in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 were summoned to stand trial vide order dated 15.1.1991. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 Annexure P-4 and also subsequent proceedings of summoning him vide order annexure P.5.

(2.) IT was averred in the petition that no offence was made out under Section 420/120-B Indian Penal Code on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. The transaction was of civil nature and violation of the terms of the agreement created only a civil liability. Petitioner was imply a broker in the transaction and had lent his services to bring about a contract between respondents No. 1 and 2. He could not be burned with any liability civil or criminal. He had not deceived anyone and the dispute between respondents No. 1 and 2 was regarding recovery of damages. The petitioner was not to gain anything by entering into the alleged conspiracy or cheating. In fact he was to be benefited if respondent No. 2 had supplied the entire material to respondent No. 1 as he was to at a commisison of 25 paise per kilogram as mentioned in the contract.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.