IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P.No.1345 of 2010
1. M/s AML Steel & Power Ltd.
2. Ashok Agarwal, Managing Director of AML Steel &
Power Ltd.
3. Mrs. Anita Agarwal.
4. Ankit Agarwal.
5. Ajay Agarwal, Director of the Company.
6. Bishen Singh, General Manager of the Company.
7. Om Prakash Jangir, Manager of the Company. ... ...Petitioenrs
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Shree Shyam Minerals. ... ... ... ... ...Opp. Parties
------------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K.SINHA
For the Petitioenrs: Mr. A.K.Sahani, Advocate.
For the State: A.P.P.
For the O.P.No.2: Mr. M.K.Dey, Sr. Advocate.
------------
C.A.V. on 03.03.2011 :Pronounced on 31.03.2011
------------
D.K.Sinha,J. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the
order dated 03.07.2010 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Seraikella found a prima facie case against them under Sections 420/406 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code after enquiry in P.C. Case No. 36 of 2010 and
accordingly directed for summons to be issued to the petitioners-accused.
The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-O.P.No.2
filed Complaint Case No. 36 of 2010 alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner
No.1 M/s AML Steel & Power Ltd. had placed purchase order dated 21.08.2009
to the complainant for supply of dolomite for the cost of Rs.858000/- which was
to be supplied by 15.11.2009. Pursuant to such order, the complainant O.P.No.2
had supplied dolomite as per terms to the accused company between
22.08.2009
and 15.11.2009 against the challans invoice and transporter bill and
the consignments were delivered at its destination on different dates to which the
accused-Company issued a computer print of the company ledger account to the
complainant showing the balance amount payable to the complainant by the
Company and its officials. The complainant further stated that though the
accused company received the consignment of dolomite supplied by the
complainant but the accused company and its officials viz. the petiioner did not
care to pay against the bills in accordance with the terms of payment shown in
the purchase order. The complainant on bonafide belief and in good faith
supplied the materials to the accused company according to the purcahse order
dated 21.08.2009 total worth Rs. 800325.35/- but in spite of repeated reqeusts
the officials of the accused company did not care to make payment to the
complainant towards supply of dolominte.
The complainant further alleged that he realized that the accused
company and its officials had malafide intention to cheat the complainant with
2
the very inception and to deprive him from valuable security and put him to
wrongful loss presuming that the complainant was a young business man and
shall not be acquainted with the business policy. He lastly sent notice to the
petitioner No.2 on the address of the Head Office and site office also through his
lawyer which was received on 22.02.2010 and 24.02.2010 respectively but in
spite of acknowledgement, the accused company and the other petitioners did
neither give any reply to the notice nor try to make a contact with the
complainant for the settlement of dues. The complainant informed the local
police at Seraikella but when no action could be taken against the accused for
long, he filed the complaint by furnishing all the papers and in that manner he
explained the delay. The petitioners hatched up and pursuant to criminal
conspiracy cheated the complainant by causing criminal breach of trust.
Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the occurrence as alleged took place in the month of August, 2009 but the
complaint was filed on 03.04.2010 without offering any plausible explanation of
such inordinate delay. The complainant admitted that there was no written
agreement between the parties and therefore violation of any term and condition
of the agreement did not arise. No relevant document could be brought on
record in support of the allegation as levelled against the petitioners and at the
same time no evidence could be adduced during enquiry to make out a case to
the effect that the petitioners had intention to cheat him. It would be relevant to
mention that failure on the part of the accused persons to pay the alleged
amount would not come within the definition of cheating rahter it would give rise
to civil liability, for which the criminal case was not maintainable. A criminal case
cannot be the recourse to release the amount due on account of contractual
obligation, the learned Counsel added.
On the other hand, Mr. M.K.Dey, learnd Sr. Counsel appearing for
the Opposite Party No.2 strongly controverted the contention raised on behalf of
the accused-petitioners and submitted that the intention of the accused could be
inferred from the very inception that they did not even care to reply the notice
which was sent to them calling upon to make payment of the cost of dolomite,
pursuant to the purchase order made by the accused company. The complainant
had filed several documents along with the complaint petition in support of the
allegation and the mala fides of the petitioners but not a single document has
been annexed with the present Miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, and such documents were intentionally
suppressed. During course of enquiry, the witness produced on behalf of the
complainant though prima facie supported the allegation and the learned
A.C.J.M. having been satisfied with the materials collected in course of enquiry
found a prima facie case against the petitioners hence directed summons to be
issued against the petitioners to appear and stand charge. The order impugned
3
recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella in the facts
and circumstances did not call for interference and hence this petition may be
rejected.
Heard the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
argument advanced on behalf of the parties, perusal of the oder impugned I find
that the learned A.C.J.M. having been satisfied with the evidence adduced in
course of enquiry on behalf of the complainant found a prima facie case for the
alleged offence under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code in P.C.
Case No. 36 of 2010 and accordingly directed summons to be issued against the
accused to which I do not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the
order so as to call for interference. There being no merit, this petition is
dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to agitate their defence at the
time of framing of charge by filing appropriate petition.
[D.K.Sinha,J.]
P.K.S./N.A.F.R.