BIRESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned 08/ 28/8/2024 counsel the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

(2.) Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dtd. 17/8/2017, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2494 of 2015, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(3.) The complaint case was lodged alleging therein that the complainant is one of the partners of a partnership Firm with name and style of M/s Rudra Enterprises and the accused persons are employees of a Company namely Castrol India Ltd. The complainant's firm was appointed as one of the dealer of the said company for selling its products in different District of Jharkhand. Against the appointment of distributorship the complainant's firm provided Bank guarantee of Rs.15,00,000.00 with the Company as security deposit. The accused no.1 is empowered to appoint and terminate distributorship of any distributor in the Eastern Region of India and the accused no. 2 and 3 can also recommend for termination of distributorship. Before 2013 the complainant have no grievance and he was running hid distributorship smoothly but accused no.1 took command of the present post of General Manager of the said Company of the accused persons started putting pressure upon the complainant and other partner of the firm to fulfill their demand and the partner of the firm under fear of loss had to accept their illegal demand and complainant started giving Rs.20,000.00 to accused no.1, Rs.10,000.00 to accused no.2, Rs.5,000.00 to accused no.3 and Rs.2,000.00 to accused no.4 per month from October 2014 onward. Under new agreement between the parties the complainant had to sell the product of the company on credit and huge sum of money was lying in the market as credit sale of the said firm. On 14/7/2015 the accused no.1 told him to pay Rs.1,50,000.00 per month for all the accused persons named in the complaint petition and further threatened him if you not fulfil this demand he would terminate his distributorship. The said demand was also made to him by accused no.2. That on dtd. 20/7/2015 the distributorship of the complainant was curtailed. That on dtd. 21/7/2015 accused no.3 met to the complainant and again stated him to fulfill the demand of accused no.1. On dtd. 14/7/2015 the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000.00 to accused no.3 and also disclosed his difficulty with regard to the further demand by him. The complainant also shown his inability to pay Rs.1,50,000.00 per month to the accused persons. The accused no.3 again threatened him either to pay the money demanded by accused no.1 or to be ready to face the consequences. On dtd. 29/7/2015 the accused no.1 threatened the complainant on telephone that he would ruin his business if his demand could not have been fulfilled by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant reported the matter under disguise to the higher official of the Company and in return the complainant vide letter dtd. 19/8/15 was informed that his distributorship was terminated by the company. Even after the termination of the distributorship accused failed to return back Rs.15.00lakhs which the complainant had deposited in guarantee.