Ashok Agrawal vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2001 including the order dated 16.03.2001, whereby and whereunder, then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

The complainant/opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging therein that Save Engineering System Ltd. was engaged by the Bihar Castings and Chemical Pvt. Ltd. to construct an unit of power plant within the premises of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. For that purpose, the accused No. 1, Shashi Bhushan Shukla approached the complainant for giving Diesel Compressor on hire for the purpose of ''sand blasting''. It was agreed upon that the said machine would be provided by the complainant on a condition of payment of Rs. 21,000/- per month. The said accused having agreed to the proposal took the machine by which the work was taken for three months and six days continuously and thereby a sum of Rs. 67,200/- became payable to the complainant, but as against that only a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to the complainant, whereas, a sum of Rs. 37,200/- was never paid, in spite of repeated demand made by the complainant.

On such allegations, the case was registered as complaint Case No. 103 of 2001, under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After holding enquiry cognizance of the offence was taken vide order dated 6.3.2001 which is under-challenge in this application.

From the perusal of the complaint petition, it does appear that machine on being taken on hire was used, but the amount which was payable to the complainant was not paid. It is never the case of the complainant that this petitioner induced the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to provide the machine for using it and as such, one of the ingredients necessary to constitute offence either u/s 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code is lacking. The case appears to be of breach of contract.

Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No. 103 of 2001, including the order taking cognizance dated 16.3.2001 is hereby, set aside. In the result, this application stands allowed.