RATTAN KUMAR JINDAL Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint, Annexure P-1 and order dated 12.1.1994 (Annexure P-2) whereby petitioners have been ordered to be summoned by the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana under Sections 420/406/34 I.P.C.

(2.) IN brief the facts are that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are partners of M/s. Jindal Auto Springs, a registered firm. Respondent Bhagwan Dass filed a complaint under Sections 420/406/34 I.P.C. on the allegations that petitioner No. 1 contacted the respondent at Ludhiana on 13.12.1992 on behalf of the firm and placed an order in the presence of Harbans Sharda and Mohinder Singh for the supply of different types of nuts and bolts. According to averments contained in the complaint, respondent sent the goods worth Rs. 1,70,434,/49p on 30.1.1993 to the petitioners through road transport, On 4.3.1993, goods worth Rs. 38,254/36p were sent through road transport. Thereafter, various reminders were sent to the petitioners for making payment for the goods, but the same was not made. Hence, it was prayed that petitioners have committed offence under Sections 406/420/34 IPC. In order to confer jurisdiction upon the Court at Ludhiana, it has been averred in the complaint that since the business activities were being carried out at Ludhiana, order of supply was made at Ludhiana and payment of the same was received at Ludhiana, the Court at Ludhiana had the jurisdiction to try the complaint. Quashing of the complaint has been sought on the ground that petitioner No. 1 placed an order at Nagpur on Shiv Shakti Engineers (India) which was represented by Harbans, Sharda. It has further been averred in the petition that the petitioners have made payments of Rs. 36729/31p, 25,000/-, 25,000/-, 25,000/-, 35,000/-, 12026/85p and 50,000/- vide cheques/draft dated 15.2.1993, 15.2.1993, 18.6.1993, 31.7.1993, 4.8.1993, 12.8.1993 and 20.2.1993 respectively, to M/s. Shiv Shakti Engineers/Harbans Sharda. One cheque dated 31.5.1993 for Rs. 47026/85P sent by the petitioners was dishonoured. Petitioners have annexed with the petitioner alleged letters, Annexures P-3 to P-9 and notice, Annexure P-10, sent by the complainant, to show that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the criminal complaint has been filed in order to harass and pressurize the petitioners.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on carefully going through the various documents attached to the petition, I am of the view that the petition deserves to succeed. It appears from a reading of various documents placed on record, that M/s Jindal Auto Springs, i.e. firm of the petitioners placed order with Harbans Sharda and payments of the goods have been made to M/s Shiv Shakti Engineers, the firm belonging to Harbans Sharda. Respondent is alleging that goods were supplied by him at the asking of Harbans Sharda and respondent alone was entitled to the payment. The dispute raised in the complaint is purely of civil nature as would be clear from notice which was admittedly served upon the petitioners by the counsel on the instructions and on behalf of respondent. In the said notice dated 4.11.1993, it has been stated thus :