PREM CHAND GOYAL Vs. MONIKA INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused/petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sought the quashing of the complaint Annexure P-1 and order Annexure P-9 by which the accused were summoned by the trial Court.

(2.) ANNEXURE P-1 is the copy of the complaint. It is filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner as accused No. 1 in that complaint. The respondent had entered into an agreement with the business establishment M/s Vinay Industries which was a sole proprietorship concern of accused No. 1 at the relevant time when the said agreement dated 2.4.1984 was executed between the parties. As per that agreement, accused 1 as proprietor of M/s Vinay Industries agreed to supply to the petitioner-firm synthetic waste which was to be imported by accused 1 from Taiwan. At a later stage the terms of the agreement between these two persons, would be referred by me to the extent these are material. The accused 1 accordingly imported the synthetic waste. However, the delivery of that synthetic waste was held up by the Customs Department on the issue of payment of the charges known as 'CVD' and the custom duty. The accused 1 raised a contention regarding the legality of the demand of the said charges by the Customs Department. The admitted position is that accused 1 had filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court and challenged the demand raised by the Customs Department. In the course of hearing of that writ petition, an interim order was passed by the Supreme Court to the effect that on furnishing the security to the tune of Rs. 92 lacs, in the shape of Fix Deposit Receipts (FDRs) and after furnishing the surety in respect of such amount, the said stock of the synthetic waste shall be released by the Customs Department. It appears that since the respondent-firm was the ultimate purchaser of the said synthetic waste, it, at the request of respondent 1 came forward to comply with the condition of furnishing surety in terms of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court. It is contended that the respondent-firm pledged the Fix Deposit Receipts as mentioned in the complaint; on the implied assurance by the petitioner (accused 1) that he will faithfully prosecute the writ petition in the Supreme Court to its ultimate logical end. The surety in terms of the interim order of the Supreme Court was thus submitted in 1985. The matter was pending in the Supreme Court for a considerable long span.

(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, taken at best, the alleged breach is a breach of the terms of the agreement that may give rise to civil liability, and there are absolutely no ingredients to spell out offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC.