C.V. Bhadang, J.

Rule. Learned counsel for the respondents waives service. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C, for short) is to the judgment and order dated 30/10/2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa in Criminal Revision Application no.113/2013.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated thus- The petitioner is based at Delhi and is engaged in the import and is a trader of optical lenses and blanks and inter alia amongst other places, has an office at Goa. The respondent no.2, M/s. G.K. Hitec Lenses Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act. There were business transactions between the petitioner and the second respondent since 1991 in which the petitioner had been supplying optical lenses and blanks to the second respondent.

4. The second respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mapusa alleging commission of offences under section 209 and section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C). The case made out in the complaint is that the second respondent had placed an order with the petitioner for supply of optical blanks. That vide email dated 19/2/2005, the petitioner confirmed the said order. However, beneath the said confirmation, the petitioner, 'surreptitiously' included a quotation for lenses. It was contended that the second respondent has neither placed any order, nor accepted the quotation for supply of lenses mentioned by the petitioner in the email dated 19/2/2005. It was contended that vide email dated 22/2/2005 the petitioner confirmed the order for blanks and mentioned that Shri Niraj Gupta on behalf of the second respondent had also placed an order for some lenses from the ready stock available with the petitioner. It was also contended that by this email the petitioner "surreptitiously increased the quantity of the blanks over and above the number of blanks for which the order was placed". On 11/4/2005, the petitioner sent an email, saying that – they will receive the material within the week and shall thereafter dispatch the same.

5. It was contended that the petitioner dispatched the blanks as ordered vide Bill No.001 dated 16/4/2005, however, the said consignment was found to contain 3653 extra pairs of blanks which were not ordered. These blanks were sent back to the petitioner who refused to take the delivery of the goods on account of which they were rerouted to the Delhi office of the second respondent and are lying there.

6. It appears that the petitioner has filed Civil Suit no. S- 6/2007 before the District Judge at Delhi claiming Rs.20.00 lakhs towards the price of the lenses which were imported from the overseas market and delivered to the second respondent on credit. The case made out by the petitioner in the said civil suit is that Niraj Gupta on behalf of the second respondent had confirmed the said order on 11/3/2005. The petitioner further claims that the progress of the said order was communicated to the second respondent by various emails from 12/3/2005 to 30/6/2005.

7. According to the second respondent, the petitioner made false claim seeking a decree for Rs.20.00 lakhs in the said suit, which according to the second respondent is an offence under section 209 of Indian Penal Code Further according to the second respondent, the act of the petitioner in surreptitiously including a quotation for lenses in the email dated 19/2/2005 and the supply of 3653 extra pairs of blanks (over and above the quantity for which the order was placed) tantamounts to cheating within the meaning of section 415 of Indian Penal Code With these allegations the complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate.

8. The learned Magistrate recorded the verification of Mr. Banu Naik, the General Manager of the second respondent and by or