VIJAY KUMAR BOHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 28.2.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 1292(C) of 1997, Tr. No. 1458 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short facts of the case is that the complainant-opposite party No. 2, who claims to be Wholesale Dealer of cloths had entrusted cloths for an amount of Rs. 14,873.41 to the petitioners' firm in the name and style of M/S Vijay Stores on 5.5.1993 with a condition that within a period of one year from the date of entrustment, the petitioners were required to return the sale proceeds or return the cloth. The complaint petition further disclosed that the payment by petitioners were made up to 11.3.1996 and till that date, a total amount of Rs. 3,739.09 was paid to the complainant. However, on repeated request, rest amount was never returned. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused persons had dishonestly disposed of the cloth in question and thereafter, the complaint petition was filed vide Complaint Case No. 1292(C) of 1997 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

(3.) Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that on perusal of the complaint petition, it is evident that there were some business disputes between the parties i.e. petitioners and complainant and the complaint petition does not disclose commission of any offence. He further, by referring to Annexure-2, submits that the receipt shows that the cloths in question were sold to the petitioners by the complainant. By referring to Annexure-2 to the petition, he submits that it cannot be considered as an entrustment of the cloth to the petitioners by the complainant or a criminal breech of trust. He has also referred to other documents, which have been annexed along with the petition and submits that even the annexures show that a Bank Draft of Rs. 15,000/- was also prepared and paid in the name of complainant. Shri S.D. Sanjay, while pursuing this Court to look into the documents, which have been annexed with the present petition, has relied on a decision of Supreme Court All Kargo Movers (India) Private Limited and Ors. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Anr., 2007 14 SCC 776. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that the court is not divested with the power to examine document even at the stage by hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.