Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 843 (PAT)

R. Seshasayee v. State of Bihar

2013-07-18

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
Judgment Anjana Prakash, J. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 17.02.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3421 (C) of 2006. 2. The Complainant who is the Managing Director of M/s Best Towers Private Ltd. alleged that the Proprietor/Partner and Accountant of M/s Raghav Enterprises came to his business premises on 21.05.2006 with an offer to sell Diesel Generating Set. The accused persons thereafter also sent a notice by FAX according to which the cost of one Diesel Generating Set came to around Rs.3 Lakhs. When the Complainant agreed to buy the same the officials of Raghav Enterprises told him to issue a cheque of Rs.6 Lakhs in favour of Ashok Leyland Limited, New Delhi which firm was to supply the two Diesel Generating Sets to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant sent an account payee demand draft dated 30.05.2006 in favour of Ashok Leyland Limited through M/s Raghav Enterprises which was encashed. When the official of M/s Raghav Enterprises did not supply the second Diesel Generating Set he started to enquire about the same. However, till the filing of the Complaint the Diesel Generating Set was not supplied by M/s Raghav Enterprises and hence the present Complaint. 3. The Petitioner who is Managing Director of Ashok Leyland Limited submits that even accepting the narrative of the Complaint Petition admittedly the Complainant was never in direct contact with the company and if at all he issued a cheque to the Company it was on the assurance of M/s Raghav Enterprises through which forum the cheque was sent. Even if the same was encashed by the Petitioner’s company it is difficult to assume that the company was in conspiracy with M/s Raghav Enterprises since there was a constant money transaction between M/s Raghav Enterprises and the Petitioner’s company. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that even though there is no direct dealing with the Petitioner’s company but since they had accepted the cheque issued in their favour which was encashed despite which the goods were not supplied to him the Company was also liable for cheating and misappropriation. 5. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainant submits that even though there is no direct dealing with the Petitioner’s company but since they had accepted the cheque issued in their favour which was encashed despite which the goods were not supplied to him the Company was also liable for cheating and misappropriation. 5. In the Complaint Petition, I find that that the main crux of the allegations against M/s Raghav Enterprises is that despite the cheque having been routed through them to the company of the Diesel Generating Set one of its was not supplied to him. On these allegations I am unable to convince myself as to what criminal offence would be made out against any of the accused persons. Thus, holding that present prosecution would be an abuse of the process of the Court, the application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 17.02.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3421 (C) of 2006 is, hereby, quashed. 6. However, the quashment of the present proceeding shall have no bearing upon any civil litigation pending between the parties. Application allowed.