SHEETAL MITTAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bunch of petitions has been preferred seeking quashing of FIRs and the proceedings emanating therefrom. The impugned FIRs pertain to the offences under Ss. 224, 406, 420, and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Sheetal Mittal, Padam Kumar and Prashant Garg, submitted that the said persons are engaged in trade and business at Delhi. And received certain goods from the other accused persons, namely, Harsh Garg and Sarvesh. It was also contended that the said three persons did not have any direct involvement in the alleged crime in question. It was further contended that the said three persons are the final consumers in the chain of transaction and have been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Harsh and Sarvesh, submitted that a perusal of the impugned FIRs would reveal that the alleged crime in question was committed through certain agents, and that, the issue in question of purely of civil nature, to which criminality is sought to be attributed. It was further submitted that the petitioners have made certain payments to the respondent-complainant(s), and that, therefore, it is a case of alleged non-payment of dues, and not that of cheating, and like offences.