HANSRAJ AND CHAMPALAL Vs. RAM KRIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application Under Section 482, Cr. PC. has been filed against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 5.2.75, under which he took cognizance of an offence Under Section 417, I P C. It is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

(2.) THE accused petitioners are the banafide residents of Siligudi town in district Darjeeling (West Bengal), and have been earning on business of sale and purchase of oil and other commodities for a considerable period in the name and style of Jagannath Hansraj and their telegraphic address is 'Jajodia'. The complainant Ram Kripal is a manufacturer of Mustard oil and other oils and carries on his business of manufacturing oil in the name and style of M/s. Jai Hanuman Oil Mills at Purani Station Road, Alwar. The telegraphic address of the said firm is 'Sanjeevani'. A contract for the sale of 576 tins of Mustard Oil (Sarson) at Rs. 980/ - per ql. was entered into between Ramkripal comlainant and the accused petitioners through brokers. The complainant's firm despatched 572 tins through wagon No. SR 5033, and further sent two R Rs, along with two Hundis for a sum of Rs. 98, 980, through the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur The information of the despatch was convened to the firm of the accused -petitioners, but on presentation of the documents, the Hundis were not retired by the accused -petitioners as from the date the contracted mustard oil was loaded in the wagons, the market rates of mustard oil started falling down The complainant deputed its Munim Ramavtar to go to Calcutta and contact the accused -petitioners, but on being approached by said Ramavtar, the accused petitioners refused to honour the documents and to take delivery of 576 tins of mustard oil Thereafter, Ramavtar took delivery of the tins of mustard oil at Siligudi, and in due course of time they were disposed of on behalf of the complainant's firm.

(3.) THE submission of the learned Advocate is that even if the facts, as in the complaint, are taken at their face value, it may be a case of breach of contract, and as such a case of purely civil nature, and no offence Under Section 417, IPC even prima facie is made out. Therefore, the order taking cognizance amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. The submission of the learned Advocate for the complainant is that Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. all that is required of the Court is to see the complaint to find out as to whether a prima facie case is made out and, if a prima facie case is made out then the order taking cognizance of an offence should not be quashed.