ABHAY BAHETI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C/1 Case No.860 of 2009 including the order dated 29.04.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.

(2.) One complaint case being C/1 Case No. 860 of 2009 has been filed by the opposite party No.2 stating that the complainant/opposite party No.2 is engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale and supply of various P.V.C pipes, plastic containers etc. It supplied various products to the petitioner for an amount of Rs.37,77,794/- and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.34,41,156/- keeping Rs.3,36,638/- due. The petitioner assured that the said due amount shall be paid later on, however, he did not keep the said promise. The complainant issued legal notice to the petitioner which was replied on 14.08.2008 assuring payment of the dues on furnishing the statement of accounts. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 through its lawyer, sent the statement of accounts to the accused/petitioner, but he failed to make payment of the said due amount.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the Director of the Company-M/s. Arun Distributors Pvt. Ltd. cannot be made solely responsible for violation of the terms of the contract in a criminal proceeding as he is not responsible for the day to day affairs of the Company. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the dispute is of civil nature, any proceeding arising out of the present complaint case is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner had no intention to cheat the opposite party No.2 at any point of time and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be prosecuted in the present criminal case. The learned court below while taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code did not apply its judicial mind, rather cognizance has been taken against the petitioner in a mechanical manner. It is further submitted that the statement of accounts given by the opposite party No.2 is not correct and it requires further correction.