PARDEEP RAJAPAN Vs. OBAID JAVEED BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has craved the indulgence of this Court in quashing the order dated 30.08.2017, passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (SubRegistrar), Srinagar and the quashment of the complaint titled Obaid Javeed v. Pardeep Rajapan, is as well implored for.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that the respondent is engaged in the retail business of handicrafts. He is running a firm under the name and style of "Heritage Art exposition" at Kerala. In order to expand the business activities, the petitioner and the respondent entered into a written agreement dated 31.12015, duly executed by them at Kerala. The respondent flouted the terms and conditions of the agreement, which required the cancellation of the agreement. However, the respondent filed a complaint against him before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub-Registrar) Srinagar. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar, vide his order dated 03.04.2017 referred the matter to SHO Police Station, Saddar, Srinagar, for investigation. By another order dated 30.08.2017, the petitioner was summoned to appear before the court. It is also stated that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and a poly devised to cause harassment to the petitioner, when on the face of it, the dispute between the parties involves a civil transaction. Therefore, the continuance of such criminal proceedings amounts to the abuse of the process of law and these deserve to be quashed. It is also stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence and prima facie the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute a criminal offence and the remedy for the redressal of the grievances lies elsewhere.

(3.) Before adverting to the merits of the controversy it will be of essence to give a resume of the contents of the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant delivered the stocks to the accused and all the payments had to be made upto six months from the date of the agreement and in case of any outstanding amount due to the complainant after 01.09.2016, the accused had to pay 4% interest per month on the outstanding amount. The accused after the quality check and verification of market price of the products entered into a contract with the complainant for the purchase of the products collectively priced at Rs. 61,98,063/- (Rupees sixty one lac ninety eight thousand and sixty three) with the condition that he shall immediately make the payments to the complainant as he had to invest the said amount in another business. The complainant insisted for cash payment but the accused issued post dated cheques in favour of the complaint's firm. The complainant and the accused made an agreement on 31 December 2015 whereby the accused purchased the stock of the complainant's firm. The stock consisted of Kurtis, Copper Handicrafts, Wooden letters holders, Jewel Carpets, Fibre, Chain stitch items, Home furnishing, Marble artifacts, Stoles, Jewellery, wooden artifacts, various other art and handicraft items including showroom installations like air conditioners, Furniture, Carpets, Electric Lights, Chandeliers, Decorative items. The accused agreed to pay the amount due to the complainant by cheques detailed in the complaint. He also agreed to pay 4% interest per month on the outstanding amount till payment. The accused made a payment of Rs. 25,00,000 ( Twenty five lac) in cash on being insisted by the complainant and did not pay the remainder though he had cash in his hand. He had the intention to dupe and deprive the complainant of the outstanding amount as also to cheat him. The accused with the evil intention to take all the stock of the complainants firm issued the post dated cheques which the accused knew would be dishonored and the complainant would be left to face a miserable life by stripping him off all the investments and capital. When the complainant presented the cheques for payment before the bank, the complainant was left in awe as the cheques were dishonored for the insufficiency of funds. Before the complainant could proceed as per the procedure laid down in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the State of J & K witnessed unrest and violence as a result of which the time period for taking action under section 138 elapsed. The complainant sent a notice dated 30.01.2017 to the accused to pay the amount due against the cheques dishonored but the accused instead of making the payments threatened the complainant with dire consequences.