The absence of established intention to cheat from the beginning and the need to make the company a party in cases where a wrong has been done by the company are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned GA-III for the State and Mr. Rahul Kumar Das, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the First Information Report, in connection with Dhurwa (T) P.S. Case No. 109 of 2021, registered for the offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The FIR was lodged upon the written report of the informant inter-alia alleging that informant happens to be the Executive in M/s Maa Chinmastika Cement and Ispat Private Limited and the company of the informant has a Sponge Iron Plant and for that iron ore is being used as raw material. It is alleged that the accused persons are dealing in the business of iron ore in the name of company called M/s Taurian Iron and Steel Private Limited. It is stated in the FIR that on 20.05.2014, accused persons have made a proposal for selling iron ore of specification 10-40 mm for their crusher plant, Badajamda. It is further alleged that on the basis of the proposal and assurance made by the accused persons, MCCIPL has placed an order for supply of four railway rakes of iron ore on 20.05.2014. It is alleged that the above order has been made with the specification of 10-40 MM iron ore, Grade + 60% - 62% at Rs. 5200/- per ton. It is further alleged that the above supply was to be made from the crusher plant of the accused persons to Barkakana Railway Siding.

Thereafter, the accused person have assured to get the site of railway rake immediately and for one rake of iron ore, they have demanded payment of advance amount and on the said request, MCCIPL has paid Rs. 1.5 Crore on 21.05.2014 and Rs. 50 lakhs on 22.05.2014, both by way of RTGS to the company. It is further alleged that besides the aforesaid order and advance payment made for supply through railway rake, the informant’s company has also paid Rs. 3,87,30,215/- on different dates for supply to be made through road transport. It is further alleged that the informant’s company has made payment of altogether Rs. 5,87,30,215/- and the TISCPL has supplied the iron ore of Rs. 3,01,63,526/- through trucks. It is alleged that the informant got an information from the accused persons that they have got one railway rake indent, but subsequently, informant came to know that accused persons have cancelled the same. As such, the accused persons have cheated the company of the informant and embezzled huge amount to the tune of Rs. 2,85,66,889/-. The informant’s company has time and again has requested the accused person for refund of the said amount but they have evaded their request on one pretext or another. It is stated in the FIR that the reason for not refunding the amount is that while making conspiracy, accused person have misappropriated the assets and properties of TISCPL and they have liquidated TISCPL.

It is alleged that on demanding the payment made by the company, accused persons threatened them saying to recover the amount from the liquidator. In view of said allegations and made in the FIR, the present case has been registered.

4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the FIR, the date of occurrence is shown as 20.05.2014 to 21.05.2014 and the FIR was lodged on 16.06.2021 and no plausible explanation has been explained for such inordinate delay in filing the FIR. He submits that in the entire case, allegation is with regard to commercial transaction and it has been alleged that a sum of Rs. 2,85,66,889/- has not been returned with regard to an agreement for supply of iron rod by these petitioners. He further submits that for recovery of the said amount, the O.P. No. 2 has filed the money suit, which was numbered as Money Suit No. 14 of 2016 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division