HIRALAL NIANI Vs. CHINAB TEXTILE KATHUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner-accused namely, Heeralal Naini, partners proprietors and Manager of the Firm M/s. Jain Yarn Agency and exporters and of M/s. Yarn Enterprises have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua for the commission of offences falling under Sections 406 and 409, RPC. The respondent is a textile mill which is being run under the name and style of "M/s. Chenab Textile Mills Kathua (JandK). Mr. Chaggar Singh is the security officer of the said textile mill. Petitioners accused run the agency business in the name and style of M1s. Jain Yarn agency and exports and M/s Yarn Enterprises Calcutta." The respondent-complainant had appointed the petitioner-accused as one of its agents for selling its goods. The agreement of agency dated 1-4-1981 was executed between the respondent-complainant and petitioners-accused. The petitioner-accused had undertaken the collection of the full invoice value of the goods despatch by the respondent. The agent was also responsible to make good the losses or any damages or shortages caused to the goods despatched to it. The agent had the responsibility for the realisation of the sale proceeds of the sold goods. In case the payment of the goods sold through the agent (petitioners-accused) was not fortheoming after the expiry of three months from due dates, the respondent-complainant had the right to charge the interest at the rate of Rs. 3/-% per annum above the rate charged by the bankers of the respondent-complainant. The respondent-complainant had also the right to debit interest amount in the account of the petitioners-accused.

(2.) The petitioners-accused had worked as commission agent for the respondent-complainant for the period commencing from Oct. 1984 to Feb. 1995 and as such were liable to make the payment of the sale proceeds to the tune of Rs. 2,76, 325.17 plus interest accrued thereon till 31-3-1986, amounting to Rs. 69,550.87. Despite repeated demands, they have withheld the said amount and thus committed criminal breach of trust. Besides putting forth the claim for the realisation of the said amount prayer was made for issuing the process for the commission of the offences falling under Sections 406 and 409 R.P.C.

(3.) On this complaint the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua found that prima facie offences falling under Sections 406 and 409, RPC were committed and he issued the process against the petitioner-accused. That said order has been challenged on the following grounds: 1. The respondent-complainant during the period of agreement of agency had failed to clear the unpaid dues of the petitioner-accused and notice to this effect was given vide letter dated 8-4-1985 (Annexure A). The respondent-complainant in response thereof vide Annexure B claimed its dues. The petitioner-accused vide Annexure-C gave their reply and demanded a sum of Rs. 28,537.20. In order to grab the dues of the petitioner-accused the respondent complainant made the false complaint and got the illegal process issued. The allegations made in the complaint are vague. Even it is not specifically pleaded as to how much amount was entrusted to the petitioners-accused. The dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and no question of any mis-appropriation could arise. Biased and partison attitude of the learned Magistrate towards the petitioners-accused is also alleged.