CHANDRADEEP BAID Vs. KESHAV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1), titled as "Keshav Kumar v. Chandradeep Baid", pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bhiwani; the summoning order, dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure P-5); and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, being misuse of the process of law.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent- complainant, Keshav Kumar, had installed a factory under the name and style of "Jyoti Plastic" at Bhiwani. He used to purchase plastic granule from the petitioner-accused and, as such, on demand of the petitioner, a cheque bearing No. 538054, dated 26.12.2007, worth Rs. 5,00,000/-, was handed over to the petitioner by the respondent-complainant as advance, for supply of the plastic granule. The petitioner-accused got the said cheque encashed, but in spite of that, the plastic granule were not supplied. When the petitioner was contacted on telephone, he replied that the amount paid was less and, hence, the respondent-complainant had to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- more to him (petitioner). Resultantly, the respondent-complainant issued another cheque bearing No. 0154475, dated 9.2.2008, amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/-, in favour of the petitioner, which was also encashed by him. In spite of receipt of a total sum of Rs. 9,00,000/-, the petitioner-accused did not supply the plastic granule to the respondent-complainant and, as such, he (respondent) faced enough mental tension, harassment and financial loss on account of the cheating meted out by the petitioner-accused with the respondent-complainant. In spite of issuance of a legal notice, the petitioner-accused did not pay any heed to the requests of the respondent-complainant. On the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, the learned Area Judicial Magistrate ordered summoning of the petitioner-accused, but he evaded appearance before the learned Court below and, as such, vide order dated 6.8.2012, he was declared as a proclaimed offender.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that an incident of civil nature has been given the colour of a criminal case. He further submitted that the notice issued by the respondent-complainant to the petitioner-accused supports his stand in that regard. He further submitted that the goods were sent to the respondent-complainant, but he failed to pay the freight charges to the truck driver/owner, therefore, the goods could not be handed over to the respondent-complainant. He further submitted that the petitioner-accused was never served with the notices or the warrants, therefore, he could not be declared as a proclaimed offender.