Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1778 (BOM)

Manjusha v. State of Maharashtra

2018-07-24

K.L.WADANE, T.V.NALAWADE

body2018
JUDGMENT : T.V. Nalawade, J. The proceeding is filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief of quashing of F.I.R.No.23/2013 registered with Kandhar Police Station, District Nanded for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 etc. of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard. 2. Respondent No.2 had given F.I.R. against present applicant. In the complaint the respondent No.2 has made allegations against the present applicant that present applicant has deceived him by making false representation. The applicant is the owner of Sai Emu Farm Proprietor Puyani, Nanded and she is in the business of supply Emu birds. It is alleged that the applicant had made false representation that the eggs of Emu which were to be purchased from the applicant will be purchased by the present applicant at a particular price and an agreement was entered into. Due to that agreement the complainant purchased 10 male Emu and 10 female Emu. For that he took loan of IDBI Bank Kurula Branch. Out of that amount, an amount of Rs. 2.30 lakh was paid for purchasing 20 birds from the present applicant. 3. Allegation is made by the complainant that the applicant refused to purchase the eggs of Emu and even when through the IDBI Bank the complainant had requested the present applicant to purchase the eggs no response was given and due to that he was not in a position to repay the loan. He has made allegation that by making false representation the birds were sold to him and that way he is cheated by the present applicant. 4. In the private complaint filed by present respondent No.2 inquiry was made by police. Relevant record is collected by police and the record includes copy of agreement. In the agreement dated 3-2-2011 there is specific mention that present applicant had agreed to purchase eggs laid by the birds sold by her to the purchaser and each egg was to be purchased for Rs. 1000. This rate was to be given for first three seasons. There are conditions like weight of the egg should be 400 grams and within 7 days of laying the eggs the eggs were to be handed over to the present applicant. Record is produced in respect of price of purchase of the birds before the investigating officer. 1000. This rate was to be given for first three seasons. There are conditions like weight of the egg should be 400 grams and within 7 days of laying the eggs the eggs were to be handed over to the present applicant. Record is produced in respect of price of purchase of the birds before the investigating officer. There is some record showing that the complainant had approached the aforesaid bank and the aforesaid bank has made correspondence with the present applicant and the applicant was asked to comply with the undertaking. It is contended that for giving loan the bank had obtained similar undertaking from the present applicant and that is why the loan amount was given for such allied agricultural activities. This correspondence was not replied by the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no record to show that such correspondence was directly made with the present applicant by the complainant. It is the contention of the applicant that for some time for first season the complainant had supplied the eggs and they were purchased but subsequently the complainant did not turn up. It was also submitted that collection of 300 eggs before 28-12-2012 was not possible in view of number of eggs which the birds can lay in one season and on that ground the relief needs to be granted. This submission is not acceptable. Specific allegations are made that no egg at all was collected from the purchaser by the applicant. Statement of the complainant shows that he had approached the present applicant but no response was given to him and he had again approached, but the eggs were not purchased. There are statements of the witnesses of the respondent No.2 to the effect that the complainant had approached present applicant for selling the eggs but the eggs were not purchased. 5. When a person like present applicant is involved in commercial activities and she gives promise that after purchasing the birds from the complainant, eggs will be purchased by the complainant-concern, such agreement becomes the base for the transaction of purchase of the birds. Farmer cannot sell such eggs in village or even in town as the purchasers of such eggs are certain. The price of such eggs being high and the preservative period being short, the concern of the present applicant needs to comply with the undertaking. Farmer cannot sell such eggs in village or even in town as the purchasers of such eggs are certain. The price of such eggs being high and the preservative period being short, the concern of the present applicant needs to comply with the undertaking. The birds are purchased only due to such undertaking and if the eggs laid by the birds are not purchased by the concern, it amounts to false representation and offence of cheating can be made out in such case. It cannot be said that such dispute is of civil nature. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on some observations made by the Apex Court in the case reported as (ARCI v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd., (2016) 1 SCC 348 ). Facts and circumstances of each and every case are always different. In the present matter only due to false representation made, the birds were purchased. It is already observed that for the allied agricultural activities farmer depends totally on such promises and if promises are not fulfilled, the farmer becomes helpless and he suffers losses. Such cases need to be taken seriously and they cannot be treated as civil dispute. This Court holds that the observations made by the Apex Court in the case citedcan be of no help to the present applicant as facts of that case were totally different. In the result, the application stand dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is already vacated. Request was made to grant interim relief for some period. That request is rejected.