Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 818 (JHR)

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-15

D.N.UPADHYAY

body2012
ORDER By the Court.-This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed by the petitioner to quash the entire criminal prosecution arising out of Complaint Case No. C.1300/2009 [T.R. No. 936/2010], pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh and also the Order dated 11.11.2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The fact appearing from the complaint in brief is that the petitioner happens to be the super stockiest of the Himtaj Herbals Company whereas the complainant happens to be the Distributor at Ramgarh. It is disclosed that the complainant placed order for supply of certain goods of Himtaj Herbals Company amounting to Rs. 25,000/- and on receipt of such order the petitioner supplied goods to the tune of Rs. 24,532/-. The payment was duly made by the complainant to the petitioner. On verification goods worth Rs. 21,372/- were found to be of expiry date and therefore the complainant made a request to replace those articles. The complainant received those articles and. thereafter dispute arose between the parties. The complainant had been claiming refund of amount against the goods returned but no refund was made by the petitioner. When the complainant started chasing for the refund of amount, he was threatened and hence this complaint was filed. 3. The learned Magistrate, after holding enquiry directed the petitioner to face trial for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 11.11.2009. 4. It is submitted that no offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out on the basis of the averments made in the complaint. The complainant was not induced in any manner and no deceptive intention was present at the initial stage of transaction and the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted. 5. It is admitted case of the complainant that he placed the order of Rs. 25,000/- and accordingly goods worth Rs. 24,532/- were supplied for which valid cash memo was issued. Only because some of the supplied goods were of expiry dates offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted. 5. It is admitted case of the complainant that he placed the order of Rs. 25,000/- and accordingly goods worth Rs. 24,532/- were supplied for which valid cash memo was issued. Only because some of the supplied goods were of expiry dates offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted. The petitioner has validly accepted and received back the goods of which the validity was expired but in between some dispute with regard to refund of amount arose between the parties. Even assuming it to be correct it will be a civil dispute no criminal proceeding is required. 6. So far the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned the complainant has not inserted that section in the initial stage but the Court suo motu on the basis of evidence took cognizance for the said offence too. This is purely a malicious prosecution in order to create pressure upon the petitioner and such malicious prosecution should not be permitted to be continued in view of the judgment reported in (2005) 13 SCC 699 , Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh. Furthermore on the basis of complaint no offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are made out. 7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer but, concedes that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner is an outcome of business transaction. 8. Even on repeated call nobody appears on behalf of the complainant - respondent No.2. 9. I have gone through the complaint petition as well as the impugned order. 10. It, appears that no deceptive intention was existing at the initial stage of transaction and the complainant was never induced to part with money. It is the complainant who knowing full well placed the order against which goods delivered. If there was any business dispute with regard to articles supplied that may be taken recourse to in a civil dispute. 11. Considering all these aspects as well as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the criminal prosecution of the petitioner arising, out of Complaint Case No. C. 1300/ 2009 [T.R. No. 936/2010] pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Hazaribagh and also the Order dated 11.11.2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406. Hazaribagh and also the Order dated 11.11.2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406. 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code are quashed. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed Petition allowed.