Rohit Patni & Anr. v. G. Jagwani & Anr

took cognizance under Section 202 of the CrPC on solemn affirmation as sacrosanct, no case under Sections 406/420 of the IPC and inducement from the very inception can be said to have been made out against the petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Revisional application. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

The petitioners contended that they are innocent and the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is concocted and fabricated. The proceeding has been initiated on suppression of material facts and documents before the Learned Magistrate in the petition, and the same is wanting in bona fides and is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, and as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

In course of hearing, learned counsel further submitted that the allegation made by the opposite party no. 1/complainant is purely civil in nature. The complainant admittedly supplied Iron Ore Fines, pursuant to business orders on different dates, to the petitioners’ company. Whatever transaction was made between the parties was a business transaction. Disputes regarding dues could be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Criminal Court. The question of inducement or cheating to the supplier/complainant never arose 5 when there were terms of business transaction. Though the complainant has supplied the Iron Ores Fines on several dates to the petitioners’ company but the complainant did not disclose the general terms of the purchase orders, being clause 5, that if any dispute arose between the parties, the matter would be referred to Arbitration.

The learned counsel further contended that there was nothing due and payable by the Petitioners’ company against the transaction with the opposite party no. 1’s company. The Petitioners’ company had issued several letters to the complainant via e-mail regarding the low quality as well as short supply of Iron ore fines supplied by the opposite party no.1 company during the year 2014-15. However, they received no response. The same was also not referred to arbitration to resolve the issue between the parties.

Even for the sake of argument, if any dues are pending, that would attract a civil suit for recovery. The complainant has filed this complaint with an allegation for offence punishable under Sections 406/420 of the IPC though no ingredients fulfilled either in complaint or through deposition. Therefore, the proceeding, initiated against the petitioners, is clearly abuse of process of law and same is liable to be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. 6

Finally, the learned counsel submitted that the written complaint made by the complainant before the Learned Trial Court is awful, vague and non-specific and same does not disclose sufficient grounds or ingredients to proceed against the petitioners. In such a situation, criminal proceeding should not be allowed to be continued for securing the ends of justice.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submission as under: i. Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and Anr.1 particularly paragraphs 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 10; ii. Krishna Lal Chawla and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.2 particularly paragraphs 17 to 23, 26 and 27; iii. V.Y. Jose and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr.3; iv. Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.4; v. Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.5. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1:

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 vigorously objected the prayer for quashing of the proceeding and