Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2462 (RAJ)

Patrick Schneider v. State

2022-09-16

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- "It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the application filed by the petitioners u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and: (i) The FIR No. 319 dated 20-11-15 police station Basani, Jodhpur and its further investigation may be quashed and set aside. (ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the complainant-respondent No. 2 filed an F.I.R. bearing No. 319/2015 on 20.11.2015 stating therein that he has a factory, Indus Trade, at Tanawada and that he deals in manufacturing and export of handicraft items. And that, 5 to 6 months back the petitioners (persons of Massive Moebel company) came to his factory and stated that they are agents of G+K Mobel Vertriebs GMBH, 1M Maintal 10 D, 96173 Unterhaid, Germany. It was further averred that the said company places orders in India and subsequently exports goods to the company Germany, and that upon conducting a quality check, an order, bearing No. 25003769 dated 17.06.2015 and order bearing No. 25004244 dated 03.08.2015 were placed by the G+K Mobel Vertriebs GMBH, company to Indus Trade. 2.1. It was further averred in the F.I.R. that petitioners No. 2 & 3 inspected the entire consignment of goods, for which the aforesaid orders were placed, at the company of the complainant and thereafter the goods were accordingly dispatched, and a bill of lading was prepared but the same was allegedly directly sent the same to the company in Germany, resulting in a loss of about Rs. 47,00,000/- to the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and hence, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners and the complainant have been in business together since about 6 years, and that in the past, they have received and placed orders and have never defaulted in making payments for the same, including the present orders in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners and the complainant have been in business together since about 6 years, and that in the past, they have received and placed orders and have never defaulted in making payments for the same, including the present orders in question. And that, in fact an advance amount, of $ 30,000/- was made by the G+K Moebel Vertriebs to the complainant's company; and that the same was communicated via email to the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that no offence, as alleged in the impugned FIR, are made out against the petitioners herein, and therefore the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vineet Jain, appearing on behalf of the private respondents assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi jointly opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing with Mrs. Pana Choudhary, S.H.O. Police Station Basni, Jodhpur, present in person submitted that upon investigation, the offences alleged against the petitioners No. 2 and 3 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. are found to be made out, which is reflected in the factual report submitted before this Court for perusal. The said factual report is taken on the record. 8. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that upon a perusal of the contents of the F.I.R. and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the record of the case. 10. While keeping into consideration the ratio decidendi laid down in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 and owing to the fact that upon the completion of investigation, the offences for the Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. are found to be made out against the petitioners No. 2 and 3, after a perusal of the factual report produced before this Court, and looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court does not find a case to be made out, so as to warrant any interference. 11. Resultantly, the present petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.