JUDGMENT G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint No.4217/2019 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior for offence under Section 420 of IPC. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 420 of IPC against the applicant as well as against M/s Manglam Seeds Company, arun Sharma on the allegations that the complainant/respondent is in the business of sale and purchase of animal fodder. The co-accused arun Sharma is the proprietor of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and is known to the complainant as the complainant had earlier purchased fodder from Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani M/s Manglam Seeds Company and arun Sharma. It was allged that the applicant is a broker. On 10/11/2018 the applicant as well as arun Sharma came to the house of the complainant and persuaded the complainant to purchase chicken feed and also persuaded the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company. It was assured that as soon as the amount is deposited, chicken feed would be supplied. When the complainant did not show any interest by replying that he would think over it, then it is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma again and again persuaded the complainant to purchase chicken feed. accordingly, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company on 14/11/2018. Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma did no supply the chicken feed as assured by them. Whenever it was requested by the complainant, then again and again they assured that chicken feed would be supplied. accordingly, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company on 14/11/2018. Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma did no supply the chicken feed as assured by them. Whenever it was requested by the complainant, then again and again they assured that chicken feed would be supplied. On 3/12/2018 the complainant went to the warehouse of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and met with the applicant and co-accused arun Sharma and requested to supply the chicken feeds as he has already come along with the loading truck, then the co-accused arun Sharma stated that he has already utilized the amount of Rs.4,70,000/- for his personal use and the chicken feed, which is kept in the warehouse, is mortgaged with the bank and since the money has not been deposited with the bank, therefore, at present he cannot supply the chicken feed and as soon as the goods are released, the chicken feed would be supplied. When the brother of the Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani complainant scolded co-accused arun Sharma that he is unnecessarily harassing him, then the co-accused arun Sharma persuaded that the chicken feed would be supplied as early as possible. It is alleged that the co-accused arun Sharma has not supplied the chicken feed so far and whenever the complainant tried to contact the co-accused arun Sharma and the applicant, then their mobile phones were switched off and he could not contact them and accordingly, it is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma have misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,70,000/-. The statement of the complainant was recorded and the Trial Magistrate by order dated 4/9/2019 took cognizance of the complaint against M/s Manglam Seeds Company, arun Sharma as well as the applicant. 3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even according to the complainant himself, the applicant was merely a broker and even according to the complainant, the amount was deposited in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and the chicken feed is to be supplied by co-accused arun Sharma. The applicant has no legal liability. 4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the complainant. The applicant has no legal liability. 4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that the applicant was a broker and only on his assurance, he had agreed to pay Rs.4,70,000/- to the co-accused M/s Manglam Seeds Company and its Proprietor arun Sharma. It was the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the chicken feed is supplied. In fact, the chicken feed, which was kept by the co-accused Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani arun Sharma in the warehouse, was under mortgage and since arun Sharma has not paid the dues of the bank, therefore, the chicken feed was put for auction. 5. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant was again and again asked as to whether the liabilities and duties of a broker have been alleged in the complaint or in the statements recorded under Section 200/202 of Cr.P.C. or not, then the counsel for the complainant fairly conceded that he has not alleged liabilities and duties of a broker. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Rajesh aadwani was examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and he has stated in his statement that on 10/11/2018 the applicant and the Proprietor of M/s Manglam Seeds Company, namely, arun Sharma came to his house alongwith the sample of chicken feed and persuaded him to purchase the chicken feed as it is not easily available in the market, but the complainant responded by saying that he would think over it. It was alleged that thereafter the applicant as well as the co-accused arun Sharma started calling him frequently by saying that either he should purchase the chicken feed, else they would look for any other customer and accordingly, this witness deposited an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and information was also given to arun Sharma, however, the chicken feed was not supplied. It was further alleged in the statement that on 3/12/2018 when he went to the warehouse of M/s Manglam Seeds Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani Company alongwith a loading truck for taking supply of chicken feed, but the chicken feed was not supplied on the pretext that it was under mortgage and when the goods would be released, then they would be supplied. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani Company alongwith a loading truck for taking supply of chicken feed, but the chicken feed was not supplied on the pretext that it was under mortgage and when the goods would be released, then they would be supplied. However, on 21/12/2018 a news was published in the news paper Nai Duniya that the warehouse of M/s Manglam Seeds Company has been seized by the bank and its contents are being sold, as the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma have sold the goods in an open market and have not deposited the amount with the bank. 8. The only question for consideration is 'as to whether the applicant being the broker had any liability to ensure supply of chicken feed to the complainant or not?' 9. as already pointed out, this Court had again and again asked the counsel for the complainant to either point out from the complaint about the liabilities and duties of a broker or to point out any statutory provision of laying down the liabilities and duties of a broker. Unfortunately, the counsel for the respondent did not reply to the said question. 10. The pivotal question for consideration is 'when the applicant has been alleged to be a broker, then whether he can be held criminally liable for non-supply of goods by the seller or not?' 11. 'agent' has been defined under the Central Goods and Services Tax act, 2017 (in short 'CGST act, 2017'), which reads as under:- (5) 'agent' means a person, including a factor, broker, commission agent, arhatia, del credere agent, an auctioneer or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of supply or receipt of goods or services or both on behalf of Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani another;' 12. From the plain reading of Section 2 (5) of CGST act, 2017, it is clear that any person, including a factor, broker, commission agent or any other mercantile agent, by whatever name called, who carries on the business of supply or receipt of goods or services or both on behalf of another would be an agent. 13. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Namdeorao Krishnaji Gajabhiye Vs. agricultural Produce Marketing Committee reported in 1992 (1) MhLJ 49 has held as under:- 7. 13. The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Namdeorao Krishnaji Gajabhiye Vs. agricultural Produce Marketing Committee reported in 1992 (1) MhLJ 49 has held as under:- 7. after going through the award passed as well as the resolution of the a.P.M.C. we are not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner is a licensee as an adtiya and not as a Broker. The word Broker has been defined in Section 2(c) of the a.P.M.C. act, 1963 which reads as under- 'broker' means an agent who contrives, makes and concludes a bargain or contracts on behalf of his principal for the purchase or sale of agricultural produce for which he receives a fee or remuneration, but does not receive deliver, transport, or pay for the purchase, or collect payment for the sale, of the agricultural produce.' While Commission agent has been defined under Section 2(e) of the a.P.M.C. act which reads as follows- ' 'commission agent' means as person who by himself or through his servants buys and sells agricultural produce for another person, keeps his custody and controls it in during the process of its sale or purchase, and collects payment therefore from the buyer and pays it to the seller, and receives by way of remuneration a commission or percentage upon the amount involved in each transaction.' 14. In the complaint, the complainant has defined the applicant as Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani Dalal/Broker. He has not defined him as a Commission agent. The liabilities and duties of a Broker/ Dalal have also not been explained either in the complaint or in the statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. From the plain reading of word 'Dalal/Broker', it is clear that a Broker is merely an agent between the seller and the purchaser and gets brokerage and his duties cannot be equated with the Commissioner agent, who by himself or through his servants buys and sells agricultural produce for another person, keeps his custody and controls it in during the process of its sale or purchase, and collects payment from the buyer and pays it to the seller. 15. 15. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that in absence of any specific allegation with regard to the duties and liabilities of Dalal/Broker, no prima facie case has been made out against the applicant warranting cognizance of offence. accordingly, the order dated 4/9/2019 passed in complaint No.4217/2019 by JMFC, Gwalior qua the applicant is hereby set aside. The applicant is discharged. 16. With aforesaid, the application succeeds and is hereby allowed.