C V RAMASWAMY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these cases were heard analogous and are disposed of by this common order/judgment as they arise out of the same case.

(2.) THE petitioners filed application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 8.8.94 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby he took cognizance in Complaint Case No. 218/94 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceedings and the order dated 16.12.94 passed by Sri O.P. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereby he ordered to issue summons against the accused -petitioners.

(3.) THE relevant facts, concerning the cases, as aforesaid are that the complainant, who is the Managing Director of Vijeta Construction Ltd. filed Complaint Case No. 218/94 against the petitioners in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, alleging therein that the accused -persons induced the complainant, its Directors and other officials for purchasing of Uelzender Heavy Duty Plaster Sprayer Model. S -80 D machine valued at Rs. 4,65,600.00 and on their inducement the complainant and the companys officials agreed to purchase the said machine. It has been alleged that it was the responsibility of the accused to instal the said machine at the work site of the complainant at Rudan (Gujarat) in working condition and the complainant gave undertaking of making payment to the accused through Allahabad Bank, Ranchi. The accused installed machine at Rudan on 26.3.93, which was found completely defective as it did not work at all and it was not according to the specification, on account of which, the complainant -company could not use the same. The complainant wrote several letters to the accused to take back machine and demanded back the payment made by him. But, the accused in order to put the complainant to wrongful loss and to gain for themselves realized the payment from the bank on 4.3.94. It has been alleged that the accused had the intention from the very beginning to deceive the complaint -company and to put it to wrongful loss and dishonestly induced the complainant -company to purchase the said machine, which according to the complaint -petition was changed because specification of the machine shown to the complainant at the time of securing order was different and the specification of the machine supplied was defective and was also different. Therefore, the complainant, prayed that the cognizance under Sec. 420/426, I.P.C. may be taken against the accused -persons and they may be proceeded in accordance with law.