MD. KALIM Vs. MUKESH BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the order dated 18.06.2001, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. -1161 of 2000, whereby he dismissed the petitioner's complaint petition under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner filed a complaint petition stating therein that he is the Director of M/s Sunrise Ingot Private Ltd., which deals with manufacturing of all types of castings. It is then stated in the complaint petition that opposite party no.1 is the Chairman of the M/s Electro -Therm (I) Ltd. and opposite party nos. 2 to 4 are other officers of the aforesaid Company. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the opposite parties for supply of 'Induction Melting Furnace' to which the opposite parties agreed to supply. It is further stated that thereafter, the petitioner had paid altogether Rs.39,81,526/ - to the opposite parties. Thereafter, the opposite parties delivered the aforesaid 'Induction Melting Furnace' and installed and commissioned the 'Induction Melting Furnace' in the premises of the petitioner. After the commissioning of the furnace it was detected by the petitioner that it is not functioning up -to the mark. Thereafter, the petitioner informed the opposite parties for rectifying the defects of the aforesaid furnace. It is stated in the complaint petition that on the request of the petitioner, opposite parties sent their representatives for removing the defects. It is stated that the representatives of O.P., admitted that there is some manufacturing defects, which require to be removed. It is stated that even thereafter the opposite parties not removed the manufacturing defects, thus, they cheated the petitioner.

(3.) The same facts stated by the petitioner in his statement on S.A. The witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner had also said so. However, the learned court below after considering the aforesaid evidences available on the record had concluded that the opposite parties had not deceived the petitioner while supplying the aforesaid 'Induction Melting Furnace' and it appears that there is some civil dispute between the parties for which the petitioner may sue the opposite parties for damages. Accordingly, the learned court below come to the conclusion that no offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. made out, thus, it dismissed the complaint petition.