AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ujagar Singh, J.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint Annexure P1, as also the proceedings thereon.
The respondent Company filed a complaint in the trial Court, alleging that the complainant Company had supplied fabrics at Faridabad to the petitioner vide invoices dated 30.7.1981 for a total price of Rs. 37,234.50. Apart from the said invoices, goods worth Rs. 73,294.62 paise were supplied to the petitioner from 20.7.1981 to 26.8.1981. Against the dues of the respondent, the petitioner issued 5 cheques dated 8.8.1981, 18.8.1981, 20.8.1981, 25.8.1981 and 13.9.1981 for Rs. 7,000/, Rs. 16,948/, Rs. 17,320.55, Rs. 12,267.35 and Rs. 10,316.87 paise respectively. All the cheques were dishonoured and returned to the respondentCompany, but an amount of Rs. 10,441.56 paise was paid by the petitioner on 16.12.1981 by a demand draft. Notice dated 30.4.1982 was given for the remaining amount of Rs. 1,01,259.89 p. together with interest, asking the petitioner to pay the same. It is also alleged that in the first week of July, 1982, the respondentCompany came to know that the petitioner, in connivance with one Khanna Goods Carrier, Faridabad, got delivery of the goods, sent through the carriers, vide bill dated 30.7.1981 for Rs. 37,274.50 p. Another notice was given on 6.7.1982 and served on the petitioner.
On 7.1.1983, the General Manager of the complainantrespondent went to Chandigarh and in presence of Ashok Bhardwaj met the petitioner who handed over 2 cheques dated 7.1.1983, drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Mundi Branch, District Ropar in favour of the respondent towards part payment of the outstanding dues and the petitioner assured that he had the menas to discharge the said liability and the requisite amount was lying in the Bank of discharging this part of liablity. It is also averred that the respondent through its General Manager was given to believe that the petitioner had the means to pay the amount to the complainant and that the said Cheques, when presented for payment, would be duly encashed. As a measure of abundant caution, the alleged notice dated 8.1.1983, was given to the petitioner to discharge the liability accruing on account of the said 2 cheques, but, in spite of this, the same were not dishonoured and returned to the complainant who received a letter dated 7.2.1983 from the petitioner that he would be sentind back the demand draft against the cheques, but this assurance was also not fulfilled. Another notice is said to have been given on 18.9.1983 giving further time to the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount.
On filing of the above complaint, the trial Court summoned the petitioner to stand trial and ultimately, isued bailable warrants against him. The petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5459M/1983 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly the Code) for quashing the complaint and on notice being issued to the respondent, a compromise was arrived at between the parties vide which, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 28,000/ by the end of April, 1984, on the assurance given by the respondent that the said complaint would be withdrawn forthwith. On the basis of the compromise the above said Criminal Miscellaneous was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.?.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/ to the respondent through a cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 22, Chandigarh in favour of the respondent, assuring that the balance payment would be made after the respondent acknowledge the withdrawal of the complaint, as per its assurance in the compromise. No reply was received from the respondent, but still the petitioner sent another cheque for Rs. 5,000/ and asked for the earlier intimation. There was again no reply from the respondentCompany.
After some time, on coming to know that the complaint had not been withdrawn and rather, bailable warrants had again been issued against the petitioner for appearance in trial Court on 30.7.1984. The petitioner again filed Criminal Miscellaneous 4245M of 1984 for the same remedy. This case was against compromised and the following order was passed :
"Counsel for the parties state at the bar that the comrpmise has been reached at between the parties. The petitioner has paid an amount of Rs. 3,000/ through cheque No. 302397 dated 26.7.1985 drawn on the United Commerical Bank, Chandigarh, in favour of M/s Sunflag Textiles Ltd, Faridabad. He further undertakes to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 14,000/ By monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500/ each by the 10th of each month. In case of the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit one instalment, the respondent would be competent to take up criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The respondent has undertaken to withdraw the complaint pending in the trial Court before the next instalment is paid. This petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise."
As per this compromise, the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 1,500/ by the 10th of each month to the respondent and the respondent against undertook to withdraw the complaint before the 2nd monthly instalment was paid. The petitioner again made an enquiry from the respondent about withdrawal of the complaint, but no reply was received in spite of waiting for enough time. The respondentCompany, in spite of the facts narrated above, did not withdraw the complaint and again got bailable warrants issued against the petitioner and kept the complaint being fixed on various dates and ultimately, warrants were issued again for 2.4.1987. The same has resulted in the filing of this criminal miscellaneous by the petitioner.
Notice was isseud to the respondent for 21.4.1987 and the proceedings in the complaint were stayed vide my order dated 13.3.1987. The case was taken up on 8.5.1987 on which date the learned counsel for the parties sought a date and the case was adjourned to 29.5.1987. Counsel for the respondent attached an adjournment slip and this case was adjourned on 1.6.1987 to 12.8.1987, but it was put up on 18.9.1987 on which date the Lawyers were on strike and the case was adjourned to 1.10.1987 for arguments. The petitioner made an offer of payment of Rs. 3000/ out of the amount due and he was directed on 1.10.1987, to have a demand draft in the name of the complainant respondent. Vide this order, the case was adjourned to 2.11.1987.
Today the learned counsel for the respondent is not present. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that a demand draft No. IT/A 528150 dated 3.10.1987 drawn by State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, on Bank, Faridabad, for payment to the respondentCompany. The same was orally directed to be sent to the complainantrespondent.
I have heard arguments put forth by learned counsel for the petitiner and have gone through the whole file with his help.
The whole case of the respondent is that fabrics were supplied by the respondent to the petitioner vide invoices dated 30.7.1981 for a total amount of Rs. 37,234.50 and a part from those two invoices, goods worth Rs. 73,294.62, were due against the goods sent from 20.7.1981 to 26.8.1981. While this amount was still due, 5 cheques, mentioned above, were issud by the petitioner and the same having been dishonoured, an amount of Rs. 10,441.56, was paid by demand draft on 16.12.1981. The remaining facts have already been given above. On these facts, it has to be seen, whether an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out or not. Section 420 reads as under :
"Cheating and dishnestly inducing delivery of property. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
In order to bring the offence within the definition of Section 420, there has to be inducement made dishonestly with the intention of cheating the person to deliver any property. So far as the facts of the instant case are concerned, there is no averment in the complaint that the said invoices and the goods were sent to the petitioner on any such inducement made dishonestly. The whole history makes it quite clear that the goods ere sent against the value which became due from the petitioner and to discharge that outstanding amount, the petitioner is said to have issued cheques. This act on the part of the accused does not attract the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at all. As is clear from the facts the goods were supplied without any inducement and the cheques were given later. After the cheques were given, no goods are said to have been delivered on the basis of any assurance or inducement and therefore, this was not a case where the petitioner was required to be summoned to face trial. In any case, even after the summoning, there were two compromises betwen the parties and in spite of the assurance given by the respondent, the complaint was neither withdrawn nor is there any evidence that any effort was made to withdraw the same. Rather, the respondentCompany has been accepting the payment made by the petitioner on some occasions to discharge his liability. Even today, as said above, the petitioner has offered the said demand draft, but no body is present on behalf of the respondentCompany to accept the same. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner has been directed to send the demand draft to the respondentCompany.
In view of the foregoing observations, I do not find any evidence or even an averment to attract the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the result, this petition is accepted and the complaint and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereof, are quashed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.