BHAGWATI SINGH Vs. GOPAL BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing complaint Annexure P. 2, summoning order Annexure P. 1 and all subsequent proceedings based on the same.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the material facts are that the respondent is running a Hosiery Emporium at Ludhiana. Petitioner No. 1 is running a garment shop at Chandigarh. The respondent filed a complaint Annexure P. 3, under sections 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against Bhagwati Singh petitioner No. 1 and his wife Suit Joginder Kaur. The petition was dismissed under section 203 of the Code by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, on 13-7-1988. The complainant filed a revision against the order which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 1-11-1989 Annexure P. 4. The ground for dismissal both by the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court was that the facts disclosed in the complaint did not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Courts at Ludhiana.

(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that except for the addition of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code the second complaint was based on the same facts as the first complaint. Reference to section 420 of the Indian Penal Code had been made in order to circumvent the order passed on the earlier complaint which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate and his decision was affirmed in revision by the learned Additional Session Judge. It was also argued that the facts of the case did not disclose any offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code with the result that the remaining facts related to the alleged offence at Chandigarh and the Courts at Ludhiana had no territorial jurisdiction. Order Annexure P. 1 shows that the respondent had been dealing with the petitioners in hosiery goods and he supplied goods worth Rs. 35,273.85 against bills A to F. The petitioners did not pay the price but promised to make the payment at the time when they entered into a later transaction. The accused thereafter visited Ludhiana in July to October 1987, but instead of clearing the outstanding amount repeated the promise to make the payment on the next visit. The respondent got sent a notice through his lawyer to which reply was sent by the petitioner No. 1 taking the plea that the goods were in a damaged condition and had been returned and there was thus no question of making payment in that behalf.