Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 910 (PNJ)

Rummy Chhabra v. Suman Deep Aggarwal

2000-08-11

V.M.JAIN

body2000
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioner, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint filed under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC. and consequent summoning order dated 9.6.1997 passed by the Additional CJM, summoning the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B, IPC. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 3. A perusal of the order dated 9.6.1997 passed by the Additional CJM, ordering the summoning of the accused under Sections 420/120-B, IPC, would show that Suman Deep, complainant, had filed criminal complaint against the accused with regard to non-payment in respect of the material supplied. The learned Magistrate, while ordering the summoning the accused, had made the following observation :- "In the present case, the accused had agreed to pay the amount of the goods within 30 days from the date of the supply, but they did not. Further, inspite of the assurance that they will make outstanding payment and the complainant should supply the goods to them and when the goods were supplied then they did not make the payment. Thus, dishonest intention of both the accused is prima facie there so as to afford a ground to summon the accused for committing an offence punishable under Sections 420/120-B, IPC." 4. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports 707, it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under :- "Apart from making the omnibus statement that the first appellant with dishonest intentions and misrepresentation got loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the complainant company for Ganga Autombiles Ltd., there is nothing said as to what were those misrepresentations and how the complainant company was duped. The only part attributed to the second appellant is that the first appellant along with Ashwani Suri, Managing Director and Mukender Singh, Director, approached the complainant in June, 1996 and had represented that they and Shalini Suri, Shama Suri (appellant No. 2), Charanjit Singh and M.L. Kampani were the Directors of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. There is nothing stated in the counter affidavit about the role, if any, played by the second appellant.... In any case, there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420, IPC and in his doing so, it is clearly an abuse of process of law and prosecution against the appellants for those offences is liable to be quashed, which we do." 5. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to the non-payment of the amount in respect of the supply of goods. On the face of it, it is a civil dispute. The mere allegation that the accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to make further delivery of the material to them by making false representation with dishonest intention and by promising to make payment of the outstanding bills along with the subsequent supply of material to them, on the facts and circumstance of the present case, would not bring the present case within the ambit of Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC. Similarly, the general allegation that the accused persons had dishonest intention at the time of making false representations, inducing the complainant to supply further material, also would not bring the present case within the ambit of Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC. This would be further clear from the fact that in the complaint. It was also alleged that inspite of receipt of legal notice, the accused did not make payment of the bills in question and hence the complaint. In my opinion, the facts and circumstance of the present case do not bring the present case within the purview of Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC. Under these circumstances, there was absolutely no occasion for the learned Additional CJM, to have ordered the summoning of the accused for the offences under Sections 420/120-B, IPC. For the reason recorded above, the present petition is allowed, the criminal complaint filed by the complainant and the order dated 9.6.1997 passed by the Additional CJM, Faridabad, ordering summoning of the accused, are quashed. Petition allowed.