ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. On repeated calls, nobody has responded on behalf of the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C1/512/2014, corresponding to G.R. No.3608/2013 including the order taking cognizance dtd. 29/9/2014, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class at Jamshedpur.

(3.) The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complaint company-M/s Arzoo Construction deals in the business of Sponge Iron Kiln Erection and alignment, structural fabrication and erection with Civil Works with its office at Marina City Shop No.8 near Sahara City Mango, Jamshedpur. As per the quotation dtd. 24/2/2007, submitted by the accused company and subsequent discussion with accused nos. 2 to 4 at Jamshedpur office of the complainant, they planned Work Order from coming out the job by the complainant on the terms and conditions agreed by both the parties. As per the specification and consent of accused nos. 2 to 4, the complainant completed the job as per the work order and submitted the Bill for payment for the period till 31/5/2008 amounting to Rs.14,45,250.00 out of which the accused persons paid only a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 leaving behind the balance sum of Rs.4,45,250.00. The accused persons and the other officers connected with the job done by the complainant company were highly satisfied and permitted the complainant company to continue with the job and directed the complainant company to submit his Bill accordingly. Initially, the complainant was not agreed to continue with the further job allotted by the accused company to the complainant since his balance due of Rs.4,45,250.00 was not paid, but at the persistent request and representation made by accused nos. 2 and 3 that in future they will not make delay in making payment after submission of the bill by the complainant company and placing implicit reliance upon the version of the accused nos. 2 and 3, the complainant agreed to continue with the job offered by the accused company to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant continued with the further job entrusted to him by the accused persons and the next bill for Rs.5,93,131.00 till 18/7/2008 and bill of the TG Building amount to Rs.1,20,000.00 was also submitted which was duly checked by the G.M. and other officials of the company. The complainant carried out the job of the accused company for the total amount of Rs.98,67,521.00 till 12/8/2008 out of which the accused company paid a total sum of Rs.42,82,251.00 as its bill transpires from the Ledger account of the complainant company maintained by the complainant in its regular course of business. In the above connection, the lawyer of the complainant company in his notice dtd. 21/10/2011 through inadvertence made demand of Rs.15,97,147.00 from the accused company in place of Rs.42,82,251.00. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the Mango Police stating for the institution of the case against the accused persons and for submission of final form after investigation and after conclusion of the investigation, the Mango Police submitted final form No.266/13 against the accused persons with the observation that the case relates to civil dispute.