The main legal point established is that the actions of the petitioner, including the renewal of the contract, failure to supply goods, and the generation of a forged invoice and false information, indicated an intention to deceive, establishing criminal liability.

ORDER :

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.437/2021 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City (East) for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC.

2. The contents of the FIR in brief are as follows; the complainant-respondent No.2 Sanyam Jain sent a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC through post stating inter alia that the complainant is in the business of import-export and that he conducts his business across India and various countries such as Africa and Dubai, through his authorised representatives. The business transactions of the complainant’s business are made through the office adress mentioned in the complaint. Mukesh Jain, proprietor of SGM Steel, also known to the complainant, through Rakesh Goyal and Jagdish Palliwal, residing in Ghana (Africa), introduced the complainant to the petitioner, who is native of Mumbai, Maharashtra, conducting business of importing and selling black chickpeas.

3. The complainant while starting the business of importing black chickpeas through the accused petitioner into India, on 05.10.2020, paid an advance to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-in cash to the accused-petitioner. To confirm/prove the same, the complainant has attached soft copies of screenshots of Whatsapp chats between the complainant and the petitioner along with Form No.3. It was decided between the complainant and the accused-petitioner that the petitioner would import good quality black chickpeas from Tanzania (East Africa) and supply the same in the warehouse at Mumbai. The complainant was assured by the petitioner that high quality black chickpeas would be imported in lieu of advance paid by the complainant. Acting upon the assurance given by the petitioner, the complainant during the period from 29.09.2020 to 26.12.2020, in the bank accounts disclosed by the petitioner, transferred advance amount to the tune of Rs.2,88,00,000/-for importing black chickpeas. The petitioner from time to time, on demands being raised by the complainant for the commodities/goods, raised bills accordingly and transmitted them to him electronically. As on 06.11.2020, as per the bills, commodities/goods to the tune of Rs.1,51,48,857/- had been sent by the petitioner to the complainant, whereby he gained the trust of the complainant. The documents regarding above mentioned transactions are available with the complainant who has attached the same with the complainant along with Form No.3.

4. After 06.11.2020, the petitioner did not send the commodities/goods as per the amount paid by the complainant, whereupon, the parties i.e. the complainant and the petitioner renegotiated the agreement, as per which, the complainant agreed to purchase the black chickpeas at a higher rate as decided by the accused-petitioner. The renegotiated sale purchase contract was received by the complainant on 11.12.2020, from the petitioner through Whatsapp, which has also been attached with the complaint, along with Form No.3.

5. On 24.12.2020, the complainant was told by the accused-petitioner that other than the initial advance of Rs.25,00,000/-, a total advance of Rs.1,16,51,143/-was left, for which commodities/goods worth Rs.1,36,51,143/-, would be sent by them by 28.12.2020. The accused-petitioner then asked the complainant to remit further advance amount to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-, so that commodities/goods worth Rs.1,36,51,143 be sent to him. The complainant through the above mentioned office address, made online transfers of Rs.10,00,000 each on 25.12.2020 and 26.12.2020, in the bank accounts of the accused-petitioner. After the online transfer of funds, the petitioner was told by the accused-petitioner that the commodities/goods are kept in M/s. Pearl Warehouse, Mumbai and the same will be transferred in the name of the firm as told by the complainant through Ware House Receipt. The accused-petitioner on 27.12.2020 allegedly sent f