MINAR INTERNATIONAL LTD., Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Senior Advocate for complainant/opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The petitioners have invoked the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of the order dated 10.05.2013 passed in Complaint Case No. 1006 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna whereby finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC"), the petitioners have been summoned to face trial.

(3.) The complainant/opposite party no. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 1006 of 2012 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City alleging inter alia therein that he is the proprietor of M/S Prashant Packaging Industries, which has its registered office at Ghagha Ghat Lane at Patna. The accused Unnikrishnan Nambiar (petitioner no. 2), who was familiar to him since long, approached him at his registered office at Patna. After full satisfaction, he had agreed to purchase packaging materials from him. He had requested him to supply goods on credit and assured that he would make payment within the same financial year. It is stated that the complainant supplied packaging materials to the accused petitioners on credit, but the petitioners made irregular payment of the outstanding dues. A request was made to the accused petitioner no. 2 to make the payment of the outstanding dues of the supplied materials, but he failed to pay the due amount. Looking no way out, the complainant sent various legal notices to him, but he is evading to make the payment. It is stated that in the financial year 2009-2010, the total sum of Rs. 70,49,461.59/- was due against the petitioner and the huge due amount was also accepted by the petitioner no. 2, but neither the petitioners replied to the notices sent by the complainant nor did they make payment of outstanding dues to the complainant. It is stated that the aforesaid act of the accused persons has caused wrongful financial loss to the complainant.