AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—In this petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR registered by Subramanyanagar Police in Crime No. 236/09. On the basis of the report lodged by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1-police registered case in Crime No. 236/09 against this petitioner for the offences punishable u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to the allegations made in the report lodged by respondent No. 2 dated 19.08.2009, on 19.01.2009, petitioner placed purchase order with the complainant for supply of 10 laptops and on that day petitioner took 4 laptops, which were available with the complainant and the remaining 6 were delivered on 21.1.2009. That towards the total value of Rs. 7,32,784/-, the petitioner issued a cheque drawn on Indian Bank, Rajajinagar Branch dated 23.01.2009 and after 5 months the petitioner paid cash of Rs. 40,000/- and 10 days later paid another sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh was paid and when the complainant went on demanding the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs. 6,32,784/-, the petitioner went on postponing stating that she had already issued a cheque and that the complainant should not worry for the same. However, ultimately, when the complainant presented the cheque on 23.7.2009 for encashment, the same was returned unpaid. Thus, according to the complainant, the petitioner with an intention to cheat and deceive the complainant, issued cheque and took delivery of 10 laptops and later failed to pay the value of the laptops and thereby, complainant has been cheated by the petitioner.
On coming to know of the registration of the case by the police, petitioner presented this petition. This Court on 5.2.2010 stayed the investigation by the police.
Though the notice of this petition was served on respondent No. 2, she has remained absent and unrepresented.
I have heard the learned-counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the allegations made in the report lodged by respondent No. 2 would indicate that the dispute is purely of civil in nature and does not constitute commission of any cognizable offence and only to coerce the petitioner, respondent No. 2 lodged the complaint before the police who even without verifying the allegations made therein, proceeded to register a case. He also submitted that subsequently, respondent No. 2 had initiated prosecution for the offences punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act against the petitioner in respect of the dishonored cheque and also recovered entire amount covered under the cheque. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the laptops supplied were defective and the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was settled amicably, pursuant to which respondent No. 2 has taken back the defective laptops and therefore, no criminal offence is made out. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the grounds and contentions urged in this petition are all in the nature of defence pleas, based on which this Court cannot quash the FIR. It is for the petitioner to place the materials in support of the above contentions before the Investigating Officer or the Court if she is summoned to face the trial and substantiate the said contentions. On these contentions this Court cannot, in exercise of power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., quash the FIR. The aforesaid contentions are all questions of fact, which are required to be substantiated at the trial. In this view of the matter, I do not see any justifiable grounds to entertain this petition. Hence, petition is rejected.