TALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is for quashing of FIR No.8 dated 17.01.2012, under Sections 420/406 IPC, registered at Police Station, Rureka Kalan, District Barnala (Annexure P -3).

(2.) ONE Gurwinder Singh is the sole proprietor of M/s Guru Dashmesh Rice Mill. The present FIR has been registered on the basis of two complaints dated 11.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 (Annexures P -1 and P -2) made District Manager, Pungrain and Senior Branch Manager, Markfed, Barnala respectively. As per allegations in the FIR, some agreements (Annexures P -6 to P -8) were executed by Gurwinder Singh, proprietor of M/s Guru Dashmesh Rice Mill with Markfed and Pungrain for the years 2009 -10 and 2010 -11. As per the said agreements, the rice after milling had to be delivered upto 31.03.2010 and 31.03.2011 respectively.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that all the agreements were signed by Gurwinder Singh and receipts were issued after accepting the paddy. The petitioner had not issued any receipt accepting entrustment of paddy in any capacity. He has been introduced by aforesaid Gurwinder Singh as a partner pursuant to the partnership deed (Annexure P - 5), which came into existence on 01.07.2011. The agreements (Annexures P - 6 to P -8) were executed by Gurwinder Singh with Markfed and Pungrain. The petitioner has no role to play in these agreements. Gurwinder Singh cannot pass a criminal liability to the petitioner, as he was not party to the contract/agreements executed between Gurwinder Singh and Markfed/Pungrain. In the complaints (Annexures P -1 and P -2), there are no allegations against the petitioner. Hence, the essential ingredients of cheating as per Section 415 IPC were not made out against the petitioner. Neither the petitioner has accepted the paddy nor issued any receipt, therefore, a criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, is not made out against the petitioner.