OM PRAKASH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 27.2.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 2755C/2005 whereby he has directed to issue summons against the petitioner for facing trial for the offences u/ss. 420, 403, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case of the complainant (O.P. No. 2) is that he is a shopkeeper. The petitioner aproached him and introduced himself as a Sales Agent of the Southern India Products and stated that his company manufactures, sells Mosquito coils and persuaded him to become stockist. After knowing terms and conditions he became ready to become stockist. The complainant then on the instigation of the petitioner prepared a Bank draft of Rs. 59,835/ - + demand draft commission Rs. 165/ - = Rs. 60,000/ - in favour of the Southern India Products for receipt of goods. The petitioner then took the complainant to co -accused Ravi Shankar Chcudhary, the Proprietor of M/s Baidyanath Sales, Deoghar, where on 18.2.2005 co -accused received the draft and prepared an agreement. The agreement was signed among others by the petitioner also. The petitioner and the co -accused assured the complainant that the goods would reach in his shop but the goods did not reach him. He contacted all the accused persons including the petitioner but the goods did not reach. Then, he went to Deoghar where on 13.5.2005 he met co -accused Ravi Shankar Choudhary and the Area Manager and told them to refund the money alongwith the interest. The Area Manager assured to return the money but the money was not returned. Then the petitioner sent legal notice to Ravi Shankar Choudhary and the company replied that the goods had already been dispatched in April, 2005. The complainant then again sent notice and in reply Ravi Shankar Choudhary denied to execute any agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as regards the petitioner, no offence is made out against him. If the goods have not been received or money has not been returned, co - accused Ravi Shankar Choudhary is responsible for it and not the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for O.P. No. 2 defended the order.