LAWS(PAT)-2006-1-33

SHRUTI ENTERPRISES LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On January 18, 2006
SHRUTI ENTERPRISES LTD. Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 21/1/2002 passed by Sri S. K. Mishra, Addl. Sessions Judge XII, Patna in Cri. Revision No. 907 of 2001 by which he has allowed the revision application of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and set aside the order dated 1-8-2001 passed by Sri D. N. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1670(c)/2000, Tr. No. 810/2001 under which the learned Magistrate had taken cognisance under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 to stand trial.

(2.) Heard.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner had filed a complaint against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 (accused) and their company alleging therein that O.P. No. 2 Tripurari Prasad is Managing Director of M/s. Bihar Drugs and Chemical Limited and O.P. No. 3 Daya Prasad is his brother and an employee is the Company. Both of them induced him (petitioner) to become the consignee agent of the Company for South Bihar area. On their inducement he deposited a sum of Rs. 12.50.000/- as security money, on promise of O.P. No. 2 to pay interest @ 18% per annum on half yearly basis. O.P. No. 2 further promised to pay 5% commission on total sale in South Bihar and else agreed to give commission on indirect sale made by him. He was appointed as a consignee agent of the Company for South Bihar for a period of five years on 30-10-1998. An agreement was also executed between them. Thereafter there was regular supply of medicines till October, 1999 but from November. 1999 they dishonestly stopped supplying medicines though O.P. No. 2 sold medicines worth about Rs. 40 lacs in South Bihar area through O.P. No. 3, in utter violation of the agreement, causing him a loss of Rs. 3.25.000/- on account of illegal retention of the commission and security money. O.P. No, 1 dishonestly did not give interest on the security money for wrongful gain to himself. The petitioner has also alleged that the accused persons from the very beginning had dishonest and fraudulent intention to deceive him by cheating; and that had they not made false representation, he would not have given money to them.