Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1372 (PAT)

Mattel Toys India (P) Ltd. v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-18

SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM

body2007
Judgment 1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 21.7.2006 passed by Sri S.P. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3270-C of 2005 whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence under sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. 2. It appears that a complaint was filed by Opposite Party No. 2-M/s Shuttle Enterprises through its proprietor Amit Kumar alleging therein that in the year 1999 the complainant entered into the business deal with petitioner no. 1 which is a company engaged in making toys. In the beginning everything was going on smoothly but since the year 2002 the company and the other accused persons started supplying inferior quality of the goods with short supply. The accused persons also started sending wrong and enhanced bill, whereupon, the complainant lodged protest with the accused persons but the accused persons did not listen to, as a result of which, the complainant suffered loss of rupees twenty five lacs. There is allegation that the wrong billing, short supply of the goods and enhanced billing was done with intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain for the accused-company and its employees, who are also accused persons. 3. It appears that before taking cognizance the learned court below examined two witnesses, namely, Deepak Kumar and Shailendra Kumar under the provision of Sec. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the witnesses have supported the case of the complainant but did not disclose as to when the short supply of goods or wrong billing or enhanced bill was sent by the accused persons. They have also not disclosed how the complainant suffered loss. 4. It was submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioners that the impugned order of taking cognizance is without jurisdiction because as per the terms and conditions of the business all the dispute between the parties has to be resolved by way of conciliation. It was further argued that the court of the learned Magistrate at Patna has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further argued that the court of the learned Magistrate at Patna has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It was further argued that the facts mentioned in the petition establishes that a sum of rupees thirteen lacs has become due against the complainant in course of business transaction and the complainant does not want to make payment of the said dues and, as such, the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners. 5. From perusal of the complaint petition it prayers that the dispute which has cropped up between the complainant and the accused persons is the result of business transaction and it is a matter of accounting which can only be decided in a civil proceeding and not in a criminal proceeding. I am further of the view that for realisation of dues, if any, the proper remedy for the complainant is to file civil suit. Moreover, I am also of the view that as per the allegation levelled in the complaint petition no case under sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons. 6. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioners have got good case for quashing. 7. In the result, this quashing application is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 21.7.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 3270(C) of 2005 whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance against the accused persons under Ss. 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and further proceeding of the case is ordered to be dropped so far as the petitioners are concerned.