T.L. JAIN Vs. MAHESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J. - This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by T.L. Jain, Regional Manager, M/s Bengal Roadways Limited, M.C.D. Building, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi and Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal, Director M/s Bengal Roadways Limited, Tiratto Bazar Street, Calcutta-7 whereby they seek the quashment of complaint Annexure P1 under Sections 420, 407 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code instituted by Mahesh Chand. They have also sought the quashment of the order Annexure P2 whereby they have been summoned to stand trial. For appreciating the matter in controversy, it would be useful to advert to the facts set up in complaint Annexure P1.

(2.) MAHESH Chand s/o Ragubar Dayal, respondent herein, instituted complaint under Sections 420, 407 and 120-B IPC against Jagdish Parshad Jain, Ram Avtar Jain-non-petitioners, T.L. Jain, Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal-petitioners herein and Raj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Bhuvneshwari Metal Rolling Mills, Jagadhri. It is alleged in the complaint that Jagdish Parshad and Ram Avtar Jain are agents of Jagdish Parshad and Mahesh Parshad Aggarwal in respect of the transporters named M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Limited. M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. have branches at different places in India. Shri T.L. Jain is the Regional Manager of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. while Mahesh Parshad Aggarwal is Director of Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. Jagdish Parshad Jain, Ram Avtar Jain, T.L. Jain and Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal are liable for their lapses and omissions. Raj Kumar accused is doing business in Jagadhri under the name and style of M/s Bhuvneshwari Metal Rolling Mills, Jagadhri and is proprietor of M/s Bhuvneshwari Metal Rolling Mills, Jagadhri dealing in metal business. Mahesh Chand complainant and Raj Kumar have known each other since long as they are in the same metal business and have dealings with each other. Complainant Mahesh Chand's wife Mrs. Urmila Rani is also the proprietor of the firm M/s B.K. Metal Products, Jagadhri, Haryana. As such M/s B.K. Metal Products is a sister concern of the M/s Mahesh Metal Industries, Jagadhri. Shri Raj Kumar accused No. 5 booked goods vide G.Rs. to Hyderabad. It is not necessary to give details of the G.Rs. along with the names of the firms to whom the goods were booked by Raj Kumar from Jagadhri to Hyderabad. Raj Kumar booked goods of the total value of Rs. 2,31,091.66 to Hyderabad firms vide G.Rs. No. 432756 dated 1.11.1986 etc. Goods were booked at Jagadhri through accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are local agents of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd., New Delhi. Shri Mahesh Chand and his wife Urmila Rani purchased the G.Rs. from Raj Kumar accused who knew them, into the belief that the transactions were honest and bona fide although he knew that the transactions were dishonest and mala fide since beginning. Accused No. 5 endorsed the 17 GRs. to the complainant and his wife Urmila Rani after they had financed him qua the amount of G.Rs along with the hundis and bills. Complainant entrusted the G.Rs. to their bankers M/s Central Bank of India, Jagadhri and Punjab and Sind Bank, Jagadhri. Bills belonging to the complainant's wife were sent to the Central Bank of India, Jagadhri and 3 G.Rs. endorsed in favour of the complainant were entrusted to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Jagadhri for collection. Complainant and his wife became entitled to the amount endorsed in the said G.Rs. accompanied by the invoices and hundis as the complainant and his wife had financed Raj Kumar accused in good faith. They got lien over the goods of their value. All the G.Rs. were returned to the complainant/his wife with the memos of the Bank. None of the G.Rs. were retired by the consignees. Memos indicate that G.Rs. were fictitious and the G.Rs. were fake prepared in collusion and conspiracy of accused 1 to 5. When not a single penny was received by the complainant and not even a single G.R. was honoured/retired the complainant enquired into the matter and contacted the accused persons. Accused persons admitted that the G.Rs. were forged and ensured the complainant that they shall pay back the financed amount of the complainant soon.

(3.) PRAYER of the petitioners has been opposed by the respondent Mahesh Chand urging that the G.Rs. were prepared and forged at the instance of Raj Kumar accused with the help of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 with a view to cheat him (respondent-complainant) and thereby dishonestly inducing him. G.Rs. are valuable security as they are negotiable instruments. Accused 1 and 2 are local agents at Jagadhri appointed by Accused 3 and 4 in respect of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Limited who has different branches all over India. Accused No. 3 is the Regional Manager and Accused No. 4 is the Director of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. They, with dishonest intention, forged the G.Rs. and induced the complainant with intention to grab his money.