important point
Well settled that the allegations contained in the complaint petition must, prima facie, show inducement of the victim by the accused by making a representation.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Parties hereto admittedly had been carrying on commercial transactions. Appellant herein was an authorised dealer of Hindustan Lever Limited. In connection with the said business transactions, appellant allegedly was required to deliver to the second respondent Form IX-C prescribed in terms of Bihar Sales Tax Rules. The Second respondent herein filed a complaint petition alleging commission of offence under Section 427, 384 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, holding :

“That it is not out of place to mention here that the company at the time of agreement so took place between complainant and Hindustan Levar got signed of the complainant over certain plain and printed papers saying that there are the formality of the organization, which is required to be fulfilled as such if the company try to take any advantage from the said papers the same would not be binding upon the complainant, as the complainant was not made aware from the contents of the alleged documents and the signatures of the complainant do not come within the definition of execution.

That as per the requirement of the law stipulated by the rule 12 of sub-rule (2) (sic) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 it is the obligatory duty of the selling dealer to furnish a declaration in writing to the purchasing dealer known as form IX-C obtained from prescribed authority for the exemption of the sales tax over the turn over of the purchasing dealer.

xxx xxx xxx

That the conduct of the accused of this case put complainant in great inconvenience, mental agony and financial despair and caused damage to his business reputation.

xxx xxx xxx

That the accused always kept proposal before the complainant to continue business with the company and as the complainant refused to join with them after 1999 and as such the accused did not supply the said form IX-C to the complainant only with the mala fide and dishonest intention which caused damage to the complainant.”

3.A Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, upon examining the complaint on oath and upon taking statements of the witnesses purported to have found existence of a prima facie case for taking cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants herein. Summons were directed to be issued. They filed an application for quashing of the said criminal proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Patna in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By reason of the imugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissed the said petition opining :

“Admittedly, the petitioners were the carrying and forwarding agents of the Company and in that capacity they perhaps were instrumental in forwarding the articles to the complainant. They cannot escape from the liability of undergoing criminal proceedings.So far as the Petitioners’ contention on the dispute being a civil one is concerned, I am unable to agree with the assertions since from the facts made out a definite criminal liability is made out.”

4.Mr. Siddarth Luthra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal, submitted that no case for issuance of summons had been made out even if the allegations contained in the complaint petition are given their face value and taken to be correct in its entirety.

5.Mr. S.B. Upadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, on the other hand, took us through the entire complaint petition and contended that from the statements contained in paragraph 14 of the complaint petition, it is evident that the appellants herein had intention to cause a wrongful loss to the complainant by practicing deceit within the meaning of Sections 23, 24 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Strong reliance in this behalf was placed on a decision of this Court in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.,1 [(1999) 3 SCC 259].

6.It is not in dispute that the appellant is one of the Redistribution Stockiest of