ORDER :

1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 48/2023 registered at Police Station Soorsagar, District Jodhpur for offence under Section 420, 409 & 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan stating therein that on the business offer being given by the accused Pradeep Dixit, Trustee of M/s Rajiv Dixit Memorial Trust, the complainant provided the requisite documents so also a sum of Rs. 1 crore by way of different cheques in the name of the trust. It was agreed that the Trust shall provide the supply of Ayurvedic medicines and also pay the rent of warehouse. It was alleged that after some time, the Trustee stopped the payment of rent and other expenses and stopped the business. Upon contacting, the petitioner refused to pay the amount of rent and return the security amount of Rs. 1 crore.

3. The said complaint was forwarded by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 46/2023 came to be registered at Police Station, Soorsagar, Jodhpur for offence under Section 420, 409 & 120B IPC and investigation commenced.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant’s firm entered into a business agreement with M/s Rajiv Dixit Memorial Trust for supply of Ayurveda medicines, however, the complainant was not taking interest in business and therefore, the business transaction/supply stopped. It is further argued that the entire case is related to business dispute being civil in nature and remedy also lies under Civil law. It is contended that the complainant did not return the stock medicines to the petitioner’s firm and only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, has filed the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Usha Chakraborty and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 2023 Cr. L.R. (SC) 188. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR No. 46/2023 may be quashed.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant are prima facie proved after thorough investigation by the police inasmuch the accused in his inquiry note has admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 1 crore and entered into an agreement with the complainant also agreed to pay the rent of warehouse but later on did not supply the medicines as agreed by the petitioner’s firm. It is submitted that prima facie case is established against the petitioner, therefore, at this stage, the FIR is not liable to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 Mr. Niranjan Singh, argued that the respondent complainant clearly stated in his complaint the sequence of the events which led to lodging the complaint and the intentions of the accused petitioner which were clear from the inception, which would attract the offences of cheating and misappropriation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the FIR and material on record.

8. From the perusal of the FIR and material on record, it is revealed that the petitioner’s firm had entered into a business agreement with the complainant’s firm for supply of Ayurvedic medicines. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 1 Crore by different transactions as security money. After some time, the business stopped between the two firms, however, the amount of security was not returned to the complainant. As per inquiry note of accused Pradeep Dixit, he has admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 1 crore as security amount and he shall return the amount at the earliest. Thus, there is prima-facie case to presume that the petitioner deceived the respondent no. 5 fraudulently or dishonestly and induced him to deliver property and cheated him. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire transaction is of civ