ARUN RATHI AND ORS. Vs. SURESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been preferred for quashing of complaint No. 512 -1 dated 24.11.2008 for offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') (Annexure P2), summoning order dated 08.03.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar (Annexure P3) and proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) THE respondent filed the complaint on the allegations that he is running the business of oils under the name and style of M/s. Pratigya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and supplies oils to various industries at different places. The accused have established a factory under the name and style of M/s. Rathi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. of which accused No. 1 Arun Rathi is the owner and director and Shrivats Rathi accused No. 2 is the owner and son of accused No. 1 and they manage the entire business of M/s. Rathi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Ghaziabad and are responsible persons for the day to day transaction of said company. Accused No. 2 contacted the complainant at his factory and placed order for supply of oils at different points of time by telephone as well as through his representative. The goods detailed in para 4 of the complaint total amounting to Rs. 8,45,016/ - were supplied. It has been averred that on demand of payment by the complainant, accused kept on giving bogus assurance on the pretext that they are facing paucity of funds as their money has been caught up due to slump in the market. The complainant contacted the accused telephonically for payment and initially they assured to make the payment but later threatened to kill him in case he demanded the money. The accused with a malafide intention grabbed money of the complainant and misappropriated an amount of Rs. 8,45,016/ - in furtherance of conspiracy.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners has pressed for quashing of criminal proceedings primarily on two counts. Firstly, the allegations set up in the complaint even if taken as correct on its face value, the same do not constitute an offence of cheating defined in Section 415 IPC punishable under Section 420 thereof. It is submitted that as per the documents (Annexure P5 colly), there were business dealings between Pratigya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Rathi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. earlier also, payments made to Pratigya Enterprises in respect of supplies received from the said company are duly reflected in the ledger account for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. It is further argued that as the oils supplied by the aforesaid company to the petitioners were of inferior quality pertaining to certain bills issued in December 2006 to March 2007 reflected in debit note 143, there arose a dispute between the parties and for that reason, certain payments were not made by M/s. Rathi Ispat Limited to the complainant company. It is further argued that dispute between the parties, at best, gives rise to a civil matter but the same has been given colour of criminality with an intent to put pressure upon the petitioners to succumb to the illegal demand of the respondent.