AJAY MEHRA v. DURGESH BABU — 1999 DIGILAW 1738 (ALL)

B. K. RATHI, J. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings of complaint case No. 1920 of 1999, Durgesh v. Ajay Mehra and another, under Section 406, I. P. C. , police station Bilsi, Badaun pending in the Court of A. C,j. M. Badaun. 2. I have heard Sri Vineet Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y. S. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 3. The brief facts of the complaint are that the petitioners are the emptoyees of I. B. P. Company Limited. Petitioner No. 1 is the Senior Manager, Agra Division and Petitioner No. 2 is Assistant Manager (Sales), Aligarh. It is alleged in the complaint by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners assured him to appoint a dealer of mobile oil of I. B. P. Company. That The petitioners approached the complaintand asked him to be ready with a bank draft of Rs. 5 lacs. That accordingly on 17-2-1995 in the afternoon the respon dent No. 1 handed over two bank drafts of Punjab National Bank. Bilsi each for Rs. 2. 50 lacs bearing Nos. 1 -95- 802830 and 5-95-802831 dated 15-2-1995. Thatinspile. of the said drafts the respondent No. 1 was appointed as dealer. That therefore, the respondent No. 1 on 16-2-1998 gave a registered notice to I. B. P. Company. In spite of the same the respondent No. 1 was neither appointed dealer nor his amount was returned. Therafter the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420 and 406 I. PC. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence under Section 200 and 202, Cr. P. C. has summoned the petitioners. 4. The contention of the petitioners are manitold. It is contended that the bank drafts mentioned in the complaint were given in the name of I. B. P. Company by Satish Chandra Agarwal, who was the dealer of I. B. P. Company for purchase of mobile oil and other articles which were supplied to him. That no draft was given by the complaint. That it is not alleged that the drafts were given in the name of petitioners and therefore, there is no ques tion of misappropriation of amount by the petitioners. That trie petitioners moved an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate, which has been registered. 5. That no draft was given by the complaint. That it is not alleged that the drafts were given in the name of petitioners and therefore, there is no ques tion of misappropriation of amount by the petitioners. That trie petitioners moved an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate, which has been registered. 5. It is further alleged that the allega tion of the complaint that drafts were given on 17-2-1995 in the afternoon is false, as the supplies against the said drafts were made in the morning on 17-2-1995 itself. That there is no question of the submitting drafts without any application for dealership and without toftowing the procedure for grant of dealership. That the dealership is granted by the Ministry of Petrofeum and the complaint is highly be lated. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the notice reply of the notice given by I. B. P. Company to Satish Chandra Agarwal, which is Annexure no RA-1 and the reply of Satish Chandra Agarwal is anncxure No. RA-2. In this reply Satish Chandra Agarwal has men tioned that the drafts in dispute were given by him for supply of diescl and mobile oil which have been supplied to him. The petitioners have also filed the account beoks and other registers maintained by I. B. P. Company to show that the drafts in dispute Were given by Satish Chandra Agarwal and has been credited in his ac count. On the basis of this evidence it is contended that the allegations of the complaint that drafts were given by him is false. It is also contended that the petitioners has nothing to do with grant of dealership which is granted by a Commit tee. That no form was filled for grant of dealership nor any application was given. That the complaint was also lodged after tong delay, it is therefore shows that the allegations are totally false and can not be believed. 7. I have considered the arguments and is of the view that at present there is no ground to quash the complaint. No reason has been alleged as to wby false complaint has been filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners. 7. I have considered the arguments and is of the view that at present there is no ground to quash the complaint. No reason has been alleged as to wby false complaint has been filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners. It has not been mentioned as to how the complaint came to know the numbers and amounts of the drafts and the name of the bank from which they were purchased, if they were not purchased by the complaint. The complaint alleged that he purchased the drafts and it is a question of facts as to whether these drafts were purchased by the complainfor by Satish Chandra Agarwal. Reply of the notice given by Salish Chandra Agarwal has been filed but no affidavit of Satish Chandra Agarwal has been filed. The ques tion of fact can be decided after the evidence and can not be decided in these proceedings. 8. In this connection I may also refer the case of Janta Dal v. H. A. S. Chaudhary, 1992 (4) SCC 305 . It was observed that inherent power conferred by Section 482 of the Code should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved whether fac tual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. " 9. In the present case also there is (actual issue as to whether drafts were given by the complainfor by Satish Chandra Agarwal and the allegation of the complaintthat he gave the drafts can not be rejected without opportunity to him to produce evidence. Therefore the proceedings can not be quashed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 10. The next contention of the petitioners is that even if the case of the complaintis accepted as correct, the drafts were given to I. E. P. Company and therefore there is no question of misap propriation of amount by the petitioners and no offence under Section 406, I. P. C. has been made out. This contention can also not be accepted. This contention can also not be accepted. If the amount was given by the complaint it could not be accepted by I. B. P. Company. In reply to the notice of the complaint the I. B. P. Com pany has also denied the taking of the amount from the complaint. Therefore, according to the complaint the petitioners have manipulated things and has used the amount of the drafts given by the respondent No. 1 to them for their own use. Therefore at this stage it can not be accepted that no offence under Section 406, I. P. C. is made out. 11. Before parting it may also be men tioned that the complaint was filed under Section 420, I. P. C. which was dropped by the Magistrate on the objection of the petitioners. The contention of the respon dent No. 1 is that he was cheated by the petitioners and on the pretext of giving the dealership of mobile oil of I. B. P. Company Therefore, without being influenced with the observation made above the trial Court will consider the question whether the charges under Section 420, I. P. C. should also be framed against the petitioners. 12. Considering the circumstances the proceedings of complaint case can not be quashed and the correctness of the al legations can be decided only after the evidence is recorded. 13. The petition is therefore dis missed. Petition dismissed.