Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 31 (PNJ)

Nagesh Joshi v. Kandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd.

2000-01-11

BAKHSHISH KAUR

body2000
JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - Naresh Joshi-petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint Annexure P.1 and the summoning order Annexure P.2 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in the complaint filed under Section 420 Indian Penal Code by M/s. Khandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd. 2. M/s. Khandhari Beverages Pvt. Ltd.-complainant placed an order for the purchase of 125 K.V. diesel Generator set, comprising of Kirloskar Commissions (Cumins ?) Engine, Model No. NTC-4950 coupled with Kirlosker Alternator 125 KVA mounted on suitable heavy base frame with standard accessories as suitable control panel, fuel tank and batteries with lead and sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid vide receipt No. 44 dated April 28, 1994 issued by Naresh Joshi, the accused, now petitioner. The case put forth by the complainant is that the accused acted fraudulently and dishonestly to induce the complainant to deliver the cheque of Rs. 1,10,000/- as he knew that he was not in a position to deliver the diesel generator set, within one week. 3. On the basis of the evidence brought on the record, the trial Court had summoned the accused to face the trial under Section 420 Indian Penal Code as there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.D. Sharma (Verma ?), learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is neither the proprietor of M/s. Electro Sales Corporation as alleged by the complainant, nor any case under Section 420 Indian Penal Code is made out against him, as the petitioner was actually working as the Sales Executive of the Firm. He left the job of the firm Electro Sales Corporation in the year 1995 and had joined M/s. Vijay Generators Ltd. Therefore, no liability can be fastened upon him. 6. The letter i.e. offer of appointment issued by Jackson Engineers Ltd. to Naresh Joshi is Annexure P.4 and the letter of promotion is Annexure P.5. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is not responsible for the act complained of in any manner whatsoever. 7. To meet this argument, Mr. 6. The letter i.e. offer of appointment issued by Jackson Engineers Ltd. to Naresh Joshi is Annexure P.4 and the letter of promotion is Annexure P.5. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioner that he is not responsible for the act complained of in any manner whatsoever. 7. To meet this argument, Mr. D.D. Sharma (Verma ?), learned counsel for the respondents urged that it was the petitioner who had represented to the complainant-respondents regarding the supply of the goods and also induced him to part with the cheque in the sum of Rs. 1,10,000/-. He was fully aware of the fact that he was not in a position to deliver the goods within the stipulated period as agreed by him. 8. After considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot wriggle out of the situation, which is his own creation. The impugned order reveals that the quotation Exhibit C-1 was issued by the accused-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- quoting the price of one (125) KVA diesel generator set. The receipt for a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- in question was issued by him which is Exhibit C-2. It was issued by him in the capacity of proprietor of the Electro Sales Corporation. The learned Magistrate has observed in the order that perusal of the Exhibit C-3 reveals that the accused had signed the purchase order for the supply of 120 (125 ?) KVA diesel generator set, quoting the price thereof to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- was accepted as advance payment. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner or that he has nothing to do with the transaction in question. 9. The provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. I am of the considered view that this is a case where the provisions envisaged under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked, particularly in view of the circumstances explained as above and the specific allegations contained in the complaint. 10. In view of the above, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.