AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Dewan, J.
In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners have sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the complaint (Copy Annexure P4) and the order of the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, dated October 4, 1983 (Copy Annexure P4) whereby they have been summoned to face trial under Sections 408/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It will be appropriate to have a brief resume of the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioner as the facts alleged in the same would go a long way to assess if the present is a fit case for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings taken thereon. It was alleged that the complainant company had appointed the accusedpetitioners as its sole selling agents for its food products. Agreements were executed between the parties incorporating the terms of the agency. The accused company was to act as selling agent on consignment accounts basis for the complainant company. The goods were to remain in trust with the petitioners till they were sold and in the event of sale, the sale price was to remain as trust money of the complainant in the hands of the petitioners company. The selling agent was responsible for collection and payment of sales tax in respect of the sale effected by them to the appropriate Government departments. According to the position of stock and sale upto the end of December, 1981, a huge amount of Rs. 1,16,90, 702/59 P on account of the outstanding amount out of the sale proceeds; Rs. 51,000/ on account of the amount collected as salestax and the goods of the value of Rs. 58, 36,000/ were laying in trust with the petitioners company as on 31.12.1981. It was pleaded that the petitioners company had failed, to remit the aforesaid amount of sale proceeds to the complainant company and the amounts of salestax to the concerned authorities and also failed to deliver back the goods to the complainantcompany despite repeated demands and thus the petitioners had embezzled and committed criminal breach of trust of the amount of Rs. 2,26,26.762/58 P as indicated above. The complaint filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, on July 17, 1982. The revision petition preferred by the respondent was, however, accepted by Shri S.S. Sohal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, on September 1, 1983 and the matter was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, for proceedings in accordance with law. The Judicial Magistrate, Nabha, vide his order dated October 4, 1983, summoned the petitioners to face trial under Sections 408/34, Indian Penal Code. This order of the Judicial magistrate was challenged by the petitioners before the Sessions Judge, Patiala, in revision and the same was dismissed on May 4, 1985.
Mr. J.N. Kaushal appearing for the petitioners has raised the indental contentions which standably repelled in the exhaustive judgment of the revisional Court. In the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, it suffices to say that I am in agreement thereof and the same are hereby affirmed. Be that as it may, all that the trail Magistrate has done is that he found a prima facie case against the petitioners and accordingly summoned them to face trial under Sections 408/34, Indian Penal Code. If eventually, the learned Magistrate comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out against them, it will be open to him to discharge or acquit them as the case may be. But it is difficult to appreciate why the order issuing the summonses to the petitioners should be quashed. All the points taken up in this petition could have been agitated before the trial Magistrate. In the circumstances, the petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear in the trial Court on 2.12.1985. The rule is discharged.