Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 289 (JHR)

AML Steel & Power Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand

2011-03-31

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha. J.- The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 3.7.2010 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella found a prima facie case against them under Sections 420/406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code after enquiry in P.C. Case No. 36 of 2010 and accordingly directed for summons to be issued to the petitioners-accused. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 36 of 2010 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner No. 1 M/s AML Steel & Power Ltd. had placed purchase order dated 21.8.2009 to the complainant for supply of dolomite for the cost of Rs.8.58,000/- which was to be supplied by 15.11.2009. Pursuant to such order, the complainant O.P. No. 2 had supplied dolomite as per terms to the accused company between 22.8.2009 and 15.11.2009 against the challans invoice and transporter bill and the consignments were delivered at its destination on different dates to which the accused-Company issued a computer print of the company ledger account to the complainant showing the balance amount payable to the complainant by the Company and its officials. The complainant further stated that though the accused company received the consignment of dolomite supplied by the complainant but the accused company and its officials viz. the petitioner did not care to pay against the bills in accordance with the terms of payment shown in the purchase order. The complainant on bonafide belief and in good faith supplied the materials to the accused company according to the purchase order dated 21.8.2009 total worth Rs. 8.00.325.35/- but in spite of repeated requests the officials of the• accused company did not care to make payment to the complainant towards supply of dolomite. 3. The complainant further alleged that he realized that the accused company and its officials had malafide intention to cheat the complainant with the very inception and to deprive him from valuable security and put him to wrongful loss presuming that the complainant was a young business man and shall not be acquainted with the business policy. 3. The complainant further alleged that he realized that the accused company and its officials had malafide intention to cheat the complainant with the very inception and to deprive him from valuable security and put him to wrongful loss presuming that the complainant was a young business man and shall not be acquainted with the business policy. He lastly sent notice to the petitioner No. 2 on the address of the Head Office and site office also through his lawyer which was received on 22.2.2010 and 24.2.2010 respectively but in spite of acknowledgment, the accused company and the other petitioners did neither give any reply to the notice nor try to make a contact with the complainant for the settlement of dues. The complainant informed the local police at Seraikella but when no action could be taken against the accused for long, he filed the complaint by furnishing all the papers and in that manner he explained the delay. The petitioners hatched up and pursuant to criminal conspiracy cheated the complainant by causing criminal breach of trust. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence as alleged took place in the month of August, 2009 but the complaint was filed on 3.4.2010 without offering any plausible explanation of such inordinate delay. The complainant admitted that there was no written agreement between the parties and therefore violation of any term and condition of the agreement did not arise. No relevant document could be brought on record in support of the allegation as levelled against the petitioners and at the same time no evidence could be adduced during enquiry to make out a case to the effect that the petitioners had intention to cheat him. It would be relevant to mention that failure on the part of the accused persons to pay the alleged amount would not come within the definition of cheating rather it would give rise to civil liability, for which the criminal case was not maintainable. A criminal case cannot be the recourse to release the amount due on account of. contractual obligation, the learned Counsel added. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Dey, learnd Sr. A criminal case cannot be the recourse to release the amount due on account of. contractual obligation, the learned Counsel added. 5. On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Dey, learnd Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 strongly controverted the contention raised on behalf of the accused-petitioners and submitted that the intention of the accused could be inferred from the very inception that they did not even care to reply the notice which was sent to them calling upon to make payment of the cost of dolomite, pursuant to the purchase order made by the accused company. The complainant had filed several documents along with the complaint petition in support of the allegation and the mala fides of the petitioners but not a single document has been annexed with the present Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such documents were intentionally suppressed. During course of enquiry, the witness produced on behalf of the complainant though prima facie supported the allegation and the learned A.C.J.M. having been satisfied with the materials collected in course of enquiry found a prima facie case against the petitioners hence directed summons to be issued against the petitioners to appear and stand charge. The order impugned recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in the facts and circumstances did not call for interference and hence this petition may be rejected. 6. Heard the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, perusal of the order impugned I find that the learned A.C.J.M. having been satisfied with the evidence adduced in course of enquiry on behalf of the complainant found a prima facie case for the alleged offence under Sections 420/406/1208 of the Indian Penal Code in P.C. Case No. 36 of 2010 and accordingly directed summons to be issued against the accused to which I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order so as to call for interference. There being no merit, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate their defence at the time of framing of charge by filing appropriate petition.