UPENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A.V. ON 04.07.2017 PRONOUNCED ON 25/08/2017 Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in Complaint Case No. C.P. 1037 of 2007 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to issue of summons against the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner who is the accused person in the complaint, contacted the complainant for supply of 11,000 cubic feet of stone chips for the construction company of the petitioner at the cost of Rs.1,28,475/-(Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand four hundred seventy five). The complainant supplied the said stone chips but the petitioner paid only Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) against the said supply. On repeated demand for rest of the money, the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) to the complainant. The said cheque was a forged one. Hence, the complainant could not receive any amount by the said cheque. The complainant sent a notice through his advocate to the petitioner but even then, the petitioner did not pay the rest amount to the complainant. It has specifically been mentioned in the complaint petition that since the beginning, with the fraudulent intention to deceive, the petitioner induced the complainant to deliver the stone chips and dishonestly used the said stone chips. The complainant in the complaint case has produced himself for recording his statement on solemn affirmation wherein he had corroborated the averments made in the complaint petition.

(3.) At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. The complaint does not contain any allegation to show that the petitioner is involved in any act of cheating and thereby induced the complaint to deliver any property to himself or any person. Hence, no offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. It is further submitted that there was a long standing business relationship between the complainant and the petitioner and admittedly, a part payment has been made; which shows that there has been no fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioner to deceive the complainant from the very inception. Further, it is submitted that the dispute between the parties are purely of civil nature and it is a case of breach of contract. In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India passed in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and Another, 2007 7 SCC 373wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-7 has held that "the principle underlying exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in now well settled viz. that the allegations contained in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety do not disclose an offence or not is the question."