LAWS(P&H)-1989-7-62

PREM KUMAR KHATTAR Vs. HAR BHAGWAN

Decided On July 27, 1989
Prem Kumar Khattar Appellant
V/S
HAR BHAGWAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the quashment of complainant dated 2.6.1987 (Copy Annexure P-1) filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.

(2.) AS per the allegations contained in the complaint M/s. Haryana Beer Agencies, Registered Partnership firm, Faridabad is a registered partnership firm. Ram Kumar Gupta and Har Bhagwan complainant are the partners of the said firm. The complainant is a wholesale dealer in English Wine and Beer. He had sold English Wine and Beer to petitioners No. 1 and 2 on the basis of valid permits issued in their favour on cash credit basis themselves, as well as through petitioner No. 3 father of petitioner No. 1 from time to time. It was further pleaded that on 17.9.1984 Chander Bhan petitioner No. 3 approached the complainant and purchased English Wine and Beer on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the value of Rs. 35315.00. Petitioner No. 3 received delivery of English Wine and Beer worth Rs. 35315.00 from the complainant on his assurance that a post-dated cheque given by petitioner No. 3 in favour of the complainant worth Rs. 47049.10 would be honoured and encashed when presented after 31.10.1984. It was further pleaded that all the accused conspired and colluded in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves, and wrongful loss to the complainant. It was further alleged that the aforesaid post-dated cheque was dishonoured after the same was presented by the complainant through Bankers "Bank of Baroa, NIT, Faridabad" on 8.11.1984.

(3.) FROM the allegations referred to above, it is quite apparent that petitioner No. 3 deceived the complainant party by dishonestly inducing him to deliver English Wine and Beer worth Rs. 351315/- to him on behalf of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3 also dishonesty concealed all these material facts which indicate that petitioner No. 3 deliberately and wilfully cheated the complainant party.