Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 994 (KAR)

PHARMED CHEMICALS LTD. v. SAINATH AGENCIES

2003-11-28

K.RAMANNA

body2003
K. RAMANNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 8-5-2000 passed by IV Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore in C. C. No. 8141/2000 (PCR. No. 49/97) whereby, the learned Magistrate rejected the 'b' final report submitted by the I. O. and directed the office to register the case against the revision petitioner /accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 120-B, IPC and to issue summons. Therefore, the revision petitioner herein has come up before this Court mainly on the ground that the 1st petitioner received the chemical components and closed down the business in the middle of the year 1997 and the further allegations made by the respondent/complainant attracts the provision under Sections 406 and 415 Cr. P. C. r/w Section 120-B of IPC. ( 2 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records. ( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned advocate for the revision petitioners that the allegation made in the complaint does not disclose any intentional deception on the part of the revision petitioners right from the beginning of the transactions and the allegations does not constitute any offence much less the provisions of Section 420 IPC and therefore, it would amount to an abuse of process of Court. It is further contended that the allegations made in the complaint does not disclose any intentional deception and it must exist right from the beginning of the transaction. In support of the said contention, counsel for the revision petitioner has relied on a decision reported in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : ( AIR 2000 sc 2341 : 2000 Cri LJ 2983) wherein it has been held as under :"section 482 Quashing of complaint and criminal proceedings Abuse of process of Court Transaction of sale of land by appellants to Respondent 2 Society cheques issued by Respondent 2 in favour of appellant dishonoured by bank because of insufficiency of amount in the account of drawer FIR lodged under Ss. 406, 420 and 120-B, IPC As a counter-blast complaint filed by Respondent 2 against appellants alleging offences under Ss. 406, 420 and 120-B, IPC As a counter-blast complaint filed by Respondent 2 against appellants alleging offences under Ss. 418, 420, 423, 504 and 120-B, IPC Appellants filing petition for quashing of the complaint / fir filed by Respondent 2 Allegations in the complaint read as a whole not indicating, expressly or impliedly, any intentional deception on the part of the appellants right from the beginning of the transaction thus prima facie the allegations made by respondent 2 not constituting offence punishable under Section 420 or allied offences mentioned in the complaint Held, continuing the criminal proceedings against the appellants would amount to an abuse of process of Court High Court erred in refusing to quash the complaint and the proceedings. Section 415 Cheating Ingredients of Distinguished from mere breach of contract Definition contemplates two separate classes of acts viz, deception by fraudulent or dishonest inducement and deception by intentional deception must be shown to exist right from the beginning of the transaction. " ( 4 ) THAT apart, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners strenuously argued that the Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. In support of this contention, he relied on a decision reported in case M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special judicial Magistrate, AIR 1998 SC 128 : (1998 Cri LJ 1) wherein, it has been held thus :"criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two Witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion". ( 5 ) IT is the case of the respondent/complainant that revision petitioner who is a limited company dealing with chemicals, revision petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 are said to have been approached the respondent /complainant and induced them to supply chemicals and accordingly, the revision petitioners 2 and 3 placed orders for supply of the said chemicals. Accordingly, respondent/ company supplied the said materials to the revision petitioner/accused nos. 1 to 5 between 19-6-1995 to 15-1-1997 in a sum of Rs. 7,45,208. 57. The revision petitioners on a loan account used to make part payment and the same was getting adjusted in the loan account by giving deductions to the payments made by them. When the revision petitioners/accused were due in a sum of Rs. 1 to 5 between 19-6-1995 to 15-1-1997 in a sum of Rs. 7,45,208. 57. The revision petitioners on a loan account used to make part payment and the same was getting adjusted in the loan account by giving deductions to the payments made by them. When the revision petitioners/accused were due in a sum of Rs. 3,66,202-75, the respondent issued a letter dated 20-2-1997 calling upon the revision petitioners to pay the said sum and in spite of that, revision petitioners sent a reply stating that they are unable to comply with the request of the respondent. Therefore, the revision petitioners herein have come up before this Court to stay the order dated 8-5-2000 in PCR No. 49/97 in cc. No. 8141/2000 on the file of the IV Add l. CMM, Bangalore. ( 6 ) IT is seen that after presenting the complaint the trial Court referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investiga- tlon and submitted a report under Section 360 of Cr. P. C. But the police submitted a 'b' final report and the same has been challenged by the respondent. So, after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and after perusing the complaint and after considering the documentary evidence placed on record the trial Court rejected the 'b' final report and directed to issue summons to the revision petitioners/accused nos. 1 to 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioners cannot directly approach the Court praying to set aside the order dated 8-5-2000 passed by the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore, and it is the duty of the revision petitioners to first appear before the Magistrate and then they can file an application for discharge and without that they cannot approach this court praying to set aside the order of taking cognizance. ( 7 ) I have gone through the letter dated 20-2-1997 written by the respondent to the revision petitioners and the reply dated 25- 2-1997. The revision petitioners show that they have refused to make payment. Therefore, the revision petitioners/accused are yet to appear before the learned Magistrate and face the trial. At this stage, I do not find any good reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .