SANJAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite repeated calls, none has come forward to defend the case of Opp. Party no. 2. However, from the record, it appears that even at the stage admission, Opp. Party no. 2 had appeared through his Advocate.

(2.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.4.1999 passed by Sri Rabindra Patwari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 603(C) of 1998. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of entire subsequent proceeding in Complaint Case No. 603(C) of 1998. By the order dated 23.4.1999, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for issuance of process for securing the attendance of accused persons. The petitioner was arrayed as accused no. 2 in the complaint case.

(3.) Short fact of the case is that the complainant in his complaint petition disclosed that the complainant was Manager in a partnership firm, namely, M/S Balaji Enterprises and while he was discharging his duty as Manager of the Firm, this petitioner had approached him on behalf of accused no. 1, who was Managing Director of M/S Schevaran Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. On persuasion of the petitioner, the complainant agreed to become distributor for the goods of the Company in question. It was also disclosed that the agreement was entered in between the parties and thereafter the petitioner handed over some draft issued in favour of the Company for delivery of the goods. It has further been disclosed in the complaint petition that goods were supplied by the Company, which was received by the complainant. However, it was alleged in the complaint petition that since the articles were not up to the mark, it could not be sold in the market and many goods were returned to the distributor. The complainant approached the Company through this petitioner for sending fresh articles, but it was not sent and, as such, it was alleged by the complainant that the complainant had suffered a huge loss. On these grounds the complaint was filed and after filing the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and two witnesses were also examined on behalf of the complainant, who had supported the stand which was taken in the complaint petition and thereafter by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offences mentioned above.