Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 565 (PNJ)

V. K. Mehta v. State Of Haryana

2005-05-04

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing order dated 24.11.2000 (Annexure P-11) vide which respondent No. 2 has been discharged by the trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the State has stated that as per the evidence collected by the prosecution, prima facie a case under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C. is made but against respondent No. 2. At the time of framing of charge, the learned trial Court should have gone into prima facie merits of the case, not the evidence to be adduced by respondent No. 2. The only thing the Court should have gone into, and seen whether a prima facie case is made out against respondent No. 2 or not. Whether respondent No. 2 will be finally convicted or acquitted, cold not have been taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. He has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1) RCR(Crl.) 297 (SC) : 2005(1) SCC 568. 3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has stated that no criminal liability can be fastened on respondent No. 2. If at all, any case is made out, it is of a civil nature. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Police challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the learned trial Court. Complainant made a complaint to the police that he had asked for supply of a furnace having a capacity of 500 C from respondent No. 2, who was the Managing Director of Simplicity Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Company (respondent No. 2) agreed to supply the furnace. A purchase order was made. Respondent No. 2 supplied to the complainant a furnace. A payment of Rs. 18,31,592/- was made. It was later on found by the complainant that the furnace could not be used for temperatures of more than 250 C - 350 C. Value of the furnace supplied was in between Rs. 7 to 8 lacs. The furnace delivered was much inferior to what was promised. The learned trial Court concluded that no witness has alleged that respondent No. 2 was not willing to complete the contract. The trial Court, in fact, came to the conclusion that it was a Civil dispute and involved no criminal liability. 7 to 8 lacs. The furnace delivered was much inferior to what was promised. The learned trial Court concluded that no witness has alleged that respondent No. 2 was not willing to complete the contract. The trial Court, in fact, came to the conclusion that it was a Civil dispute and involved no criminal liability. It two views are possible and the Judge is convinced on the evidence adduced before him, that no criminal liability is made out, he is entitled to discharge the accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate, without recording any evidence, came to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence adduced before him, he was satisfied that no criminal liability can be fastened on respondent No. 2. 6. In the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), the law has been settled by the Honble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that at the stage of framing of charge, there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, which gives a right to the accused to file any material or document at that stage of framing of charge. This right is only granted at the stage of trial. The citation fully covers the case in hand. 7. Revision petition is allowed. Order dated 24.11.2000 passed by the JMIC, Faridabad is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.6.2005. Registry is directed to send the case file to the trial Court before 12.6.2005. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, as expeditiously, as possible.