The court reiterated the principle that dishonest intention should exist at the very inception of the promise made and that mere failure to subsequently keep a promise does not give rise to a presumption of culpable intention from the beginning.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Deepak Maheshwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and learned Public Prosecutor.

2. Two separate criminal misc. petitions have been preferred on behalf of the accused-persons with the prayer to quash and setaside FIR No.145/2016, registered at PS Sadar, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 384 & 120-B IPC.

3. Briefly stated, the facts mentioned in the FIR are that Shri Karanpal Singh, Shri Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia and Shri Prashant Kumar Ahluwalia, who happened to be Directors of Kamal Sponge Steel & Power Ltd. (for short 'KSSPL') purchased iron billets through Omprakash Agarwal and Smt. Sushila Agarwal, Manager & Proprietor respectively of M/s. Maa Ganga Ispat from complainant Akhilesh Agarwal, Director of Maruti Product Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'MPPL'). In the year 2012-2013 KSSPL purchased iron billets worth Rs.1,91,28,775/-. Out of this, iron billets of Rs.1,89,36,232/- were purchased through accused Nos.4 & 5 i.e. Shri Omprakash Agarwal and Smt. Sushila Agarwal. Iron billets worth Rs.1,92,543/- was purchased directly by the accused Nos.1 to 3 from MPPL. It was agreed upon between the parties to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of purchase of goods and in case of failure, to pay the interest amount @ 18% p.a. When the payment was not made within due time, complainant contacted the accused-persons. On 14.05.2013, accused Nos. 4 & 5 wrote a letter on their letter head to the complainant stating that payment of Rs.1,89,36,232/- would be made directly by the company of accused Nos.1 to 3 to the complainant. Accused Nos.1 to 3 also gave recognition to the letter written by accused Nos.4 & 5 and owned the responsibility for the same, but the payment was not made despite reminders. Ultimately, the accused-persons having dishonest intention and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and to make wrongful gain to themselves, denied to make the payment. It has been alleged in the FIR that right from the beginning intention of the accused-persons was dishonest and they wanted to grab the iron billets without making payment therefore. On telephonic call made by the complainant on 18.03.2016, the accused-persons completely denied any responsibility for payment and threatened him for dire consequences.

4. On the complaint filed by the complainant mentioning the aforesaid allegations, FIR No.145/2016 came to be lodged at PS Sadar, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 409, 384 & 120-B IPC.

5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners Karanpal Singh, Prashant Kumar and Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia has contended that KSSPL, of which petitioners are Directors, was having regular business transactions with MPPL since 2011-2012. On certain occasions, on account of defect in quality or deficiency of goods certain issues cropped up between them, but payment was used to be made considering the healthy business relations. Counsel submits that the facts alleged in the FIR clearly reveal that the dispute pertains to commercial transaction and arising out of business relations. No criminal offence is made out. FIR has been lodged by the complainant just to pressurize the petitioner-Company to make payment of the amount, which is not otherwise legally payable. The FIR was lodged with inordinate delay. No criminality can be assigned to the petitioners. The petitioners are Directors of KSSPL, who cannot be held vicariously liable for any default made by the Company. It has further been contended that after due investigation made in the FIR, a Negative Final Report was proposed but later on for some extraneous reasons, the investigation was changed and consequently, direction of investigation has also been changed. Counsel submits that in view of above stated facts, FIR deserves to be quashed and setaside.

6. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners Omprakash Agarwal and Smt. Sushila Agarwal in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1049/2017 has a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document