K MAHENDER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party no.2.

(2.) The petitioner no.1 is the Vice President of Nicholas Piramal Tower limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') having its office at Mumbai. The petitioner no.2 is the Chairman of the said company. The complainant Pashupatinath Khemka is the partner of M/s J.R. Distributors. He has lodged a complaint petition on 27.9.2005 in which he has stated that his company was appointed as a distributor by Nicholas Piramal Limited and the parties had entered into agreement for this purpose.

(3.) The main allegation in the complaint petition is that the Mumbai Company had enticed the complainant to accept the distributorship of Nicholas Piramal. It has further been alleged that the petitioners had invoked bank guarantee of ten lakhs and on that basis of these facts the case has been made out under Sections 406, 120 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there are certain facts and documents which would show that in fact no offence under Section 420 or 406 of the IPC has been made out in the complaint petition. The first document referred to is Annexure-3 which shows that the complainant Pashupatinath Khemka had opened a new company known as M/s Omkar Distributors and he had addressed a letter to the Nicholas Piramal on 8.6.2005 in which he had stated that, presently he had now opened a new firm and had requested permission to do the work of distribution for Nicholas Piramal. By this document the petitioner is emphasing that J.R. distributors, the partnership firm, had dissolved and the company was now operating a new firm and he wanted to Act as a distributor for the Mumbai company.