A C SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question has been posed in this case as to whether if a person files a complaint suppressing the material and real facts and if those facts have been disclosed by the accused before the High Court, which remain un- controverted, the High Court will be precluded from interfering by quashing the complaint petition merely on the ground that those facts have not been stated in the complaint petition.

(2.) In order to answer the question, some facts may be stated briefly; The complainant filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buxar giving rise to complaint case No.646 (C)/99. The allegation was made that the complainant had a deal with petitioner No. 2, A.K. Banerjee, the Manager of M/s. Sone Valley Portlands Cements for purchase of 50 MT of Cement. To this effect a Bank draft of Rs. 31,000/- in the name of Sone valley Portlands Cement Company was handed-over to Mr.Banerjee who granted a receipt on 30.8.1985 in acknowledgement of the said draft. He also gave delivery order bearing No. 164 dated 30.8.1985.

(3.) When the complainant visited the cement factory at Japla to take supply of cement, he was not supplied with the same. He wanted to get the money refund and, as such, he contacted Mr. Banerjee and other accused persons, namely, Mr. A.C. Srivastava on several occasions and also made correspondences to this effect. However, neither any reply was given to him nor cement was supplied. Ultimately, the complainant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Industry and Registrar of the Company but without any effect. It is further alleged that the accused-persons acted in connivance and with concert with each other and by cheating the petitioners misappropriated the said sum of Rs. 31,000/-. In his complaint petition the complainant has annexed several letters which were exchanged between the accused-persons and the complainant. The complaint petition further reveals that said Banerjee even gave him assurance that as due to lock-out in the factory the cement could not be supplied but on the opening of the Company either cement would be supplied as promised or the money would be refunded. According to the complainant, though in between 1990 to April 1992 the accused-persons started production of cement and sold out the same but with connivance neither supplied required cement to him nor returned the amount.