CHITRANJAN MOHAN VASHISHT Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the criminal complaint and the order of charge under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, framed against the petitioner.

(2.) THE complaint proceeds on the following allegations: The complainant-respondent was said to be running a business in cold drinks. He entered into business dealings with the accused-petitioner in March, 1984. The arrangement was that the accused-petitioner would be given 300 wooden crates for the purpose of employing them for the supply of bottled cold drinks. Prior to July 5, 1984 suggestedly some differences took place but on July 5, 1984, it was agreed upon between the parties that the accused-petitioner would return 300 wooden crates and in case of his failure to do so, he would pay Rs. 22,600/- along-with interest at the rate of 2 per cent per mensum after July 30, 1984. It is further stated in the complaint that time and again the accused-petitioner was requested to pay Rs. 22,600/- together with interest and lastly request was made on October 30, 1984, in the presence of the prosecution witnesses, but the accused-petitioner called them bad names, abused them and even gave two stick blows to the complainant while flatly refusing to return the crates or the amount. It is on these allegations that a complaint under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code was instituted. The learned Magistrate, after recording the preliminary evidence, summoned the accused persons and then having recorded pre-charge evidence famed charge under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, against the accused-petitioner vide the impugned order dated October 7, 1985 (Annexure P3).

(3.) THE observations of the learned Magistrate do not appeal to reason. After the execution of the agreement dated July 5, 1984, the accused had the option either to return the crates or the price thereof with interest. In either situation it was only a civil liability. The complaint in these circumstances is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, the same is quashed and sequelly the charge. Allowed, accordingly.