Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner Vijay Krishna Mehta, who is Chairman cum Managing Director of M/s. Clutch Auto Ltd. under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No. 116 of 2012 dated 23.3.2012 registered at Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur for offence under sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Garima Overseas Ltd. through its Director Mr. Dinesh Paras Rampuria ( in short complainant respondent company), having its office on Sikar Road, Jaipur filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate No. 31, Jaipur Metropolitan,Jaipur and the Metropolitan Magistrate No.31 Jaipur forwarded the complaint to the Police Station Murlipura Jaipur under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the said Police Station registered the same as FIR No.116/2012 dated 23.3.2012. As per the complaint it is borne out that from the period April 2008 till July 2008 whatever goods were sent \to. M/s. Clutch Auto Ltd. New Delhi ( accused petitioner's company) by the complaint company m/s. Garima Overseas Ltd. all the payments were made in time and it was only on 22.7.2008 that the payment of supplied material was not made and at some point of time part payment was made. In paras No.6 and 7 of the complaint/FIR it has been stated thus :

^^6- --------- bl izdkj lHkh vfHk;qäx.kksa us ,d jk; gksdj ds cn;kfUriwoZd ifjoknh dEiuh dks /kks[ks nsus ds mís'; ls vkSj Lo;a dks lanks"k ykHk izkfIr ds mís'; ls djksM+ks :i;s dk eky izkir dj fy;k vkSj fnukad 15-9-2011 rd tks eky ifjoknh dEiuh }kjk vfHk;qä dEiuh dh vkiwfrZ dh xbZ mlds Hkqxrku ds isVs 3]64]17]035 :i;s vfHk;qäx.k esa okftc cdk;k gSA

7- ;g fd mijksä yxHkx lk<+s rhu djksM :i;s dh /kks[kk/kM+h ds Øe esa vfHk;qäx.kksa ds }kjk fnukad 31-03-2010 dks ifjoknh dEiuh ds LVsVesUV vkQ vdkmUV ijiw.kZ lgefr trkrs gq, vf/k—r O;fä ds gLrk{kj djrs gq, rnle; 3]83]80]255 :i;s dh Loh—fr dh xbZ rFkk bl LVsVesUV lgefr esa vfHk;qä dEiuh us ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k fd bl vof/k rd tks Hkh eky muds }kjk ifjoknh dEiuh ls [kjhn fd;k x;k gS mlds lanHkZ esa ftruk Hkh fjtsD'ku] 'kfVt] dkVZjst] LØsi jsV fMjsUl bR;kfn tks Hkh jgk gS mu lcdk lek;kstu Hkh vfHk;qä dEiuh ds }kjk dj fy;k x;k gS blls Hkh ;g Li"V :i ls izdV ,oa LFkkfir gksrk gS fd vfHk;qä.kksa us dsoy ek= /kks[kk/kM+h dj ifjoknh dEiuh dh jkf'k gM+i dj tkus ds mís'; ls >waBs vk'okluksa ds vk/kkj ij eky izkIr fd;k gSA**

Paras 17 and 18 of the said FIR/complaint read as under :

^^17- ;g fd mijksä of.kZr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qäx.kksa us ,djk; gksdj eky izkIr djus ds izkjfEHkd fnol ls gh ifjoknh dEiuh dks >waBs vk'oklu ekSf[kd o fyf[kr esa nsdj rFkk eky gM+i djus ds fy, fujUrj u;s u;s izLrko o Ldhe nsdj ifjoknh dEiuh ls djksM+ks :i;s dk eky izkIr dj gM+i dj fy;k vkSj ml eky dks Lo;a ds izkMDV esa yxkdj Lo;a ds lnks"k ykHk o ifjoknh dEiuh dks lnks"k gkfu igqWpk;h gSA ;g vfHk;qäx.k lHkh vkil esa ,djk; gksdj Fks bl izdkj vfHk;qäx.k us lk'k; ls ifjoknh dEiuh ls izkIr eky dks [kqnZ cqnZ dj Lo;a ds dke esa ysdj ifjoknh deiuh dk U;Lr fd;k gqvk eky Fkk mldk nq:i;ksx Lo;a ds ykHk gsrq dj fy;k gS ftlls mlds fo:) vkbZ-ih-lh- dh /kkjk 420] 406] 120ch dk vijk/k Li"V :i ls izdV ,oa LFkkfir gksrk gSA

18- ;g fd tc ifjoknh dEiuh ds }kjk vfHk;qäx.kksa dks bl vk'k; dk i= izsf"kr fd;k x;k fd mudh deiuh can gksus ds dxkj ij gS rks vfHk;qäx.kksa us fnukad 15-11-2011 dks ,d i= izsf"kr fd;k ftlesa ifjoknh dEiuh dks [kjhn djus dh bZPNk tkfgj dh ftlls Hkh vfHk;qäx.kksa dh cnfu;rh Li"V gksrh gS fd mudk mís'; u dsoy ifjoknh dEiuh ds djksM+ks ds eky dks gM+i dj tkus dk Fkk cfYd og izkjEHk ls gh bl ifjoknh dEiuh dks can djokdj ds mldks bl izdkj dk vkfFkZd uqdlku nsdj dEiuh dh ;wfuV dks gM+i tkuk pkgrs FksA**

3. Mr. Manish Kumar Shukla, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that initially there was no quality related issue, the relation between the petitioner and the Director of complainant respondent No. 2 were cordial and from time to time upon receipt of the goods, payments were made by the petitioner through his c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document