IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of documentary evidence supporting allegations of cheating led to the quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 417 and 506 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1535 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 2288 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih.

3. The complaint case was lodged alleging there:-

The complainant is the employee of the company namely Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd. and has been authorized by the company to see the legal matters of the company. The accused who is owner of Austin Distributors has come to the company of the complainant on 22.10.2007 and said that he was the dealer of Mitshubishi Company and further said that the said company (Mitshubishi) was providing special discount to their consumer on the purchase of vehicle.

The two vehicles namely PAJERO and CIDIA are available and in PAJERO Rs.70,000/- and in CIDIA Rs.35,000/- discount would be given. Believing upon the proposal and words given by the accused, the complainant's company purchased one PAJERO and one CIDIA on 26.11.2007.

The accused at the time of dealing the sale of vehicle had said that if you got the vehicle in that case the payment would be made on the basis of invoice rate and the discounted amount would be given to you later on. It is further submitted that both the vehicles of the complainant's company was got financed by HDFC Bank, Dhanbad and as per the invoice, the rate given by the accused. The HDFC bank paid an amount of Rs. 18,18,000/- and Rs. 8,30,000/- towards PAJERO and CIDIA.

When the discounted amount has not been returned by the accused and every time for some reason they started to take time. It is further alleged that the complainant's company also made correspondence to the accused in regard to this matter and after that the accused has refused from his promise to return the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/- towards the discount.

In spite of returning money, the accused has also said that Rs.9,000/- and Rs. 6,100/- would be adjusted towards the temporary registration of PAJERO and CIDIA respectively whereas as per the complainant, for this the accused person has issued receipt of Ra. 535/- for each vehicle.

The accused on the basis of false promise has taken Rs. 27,11,000/- from the complainant's company and did not return Rs.1,05,000/- which he was owning towards the complainant's company. It is further stated that the accused by making false promise has cheated the complainant company and got the money of the complainant's company by defalcation.

Time and again the accused persons took time from the complainant for returning the money and on the date of incident, the accused has clearly said that he would not given any money to the complainant.

The complainant given threatening for dire consequences if they would again make demand for the discounted amount. It is further alleged that the complainant's company has come to the conclusion that the accused on the basis of wrong promise cheated the company.

4. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire transaction is arising out of a purchase order. He submits that there are allegations of purchasing two vehicles from the petitioner and the finance was made by the HDFC Bank. He further submits that the allegations are made that a sum of Rs. 1, 05,000/- was not refunded back by this petitioner to the O.P. No. 2 after purchase of the vehicles, which is false. He submits that not a single chit of paper is there about the said undertaking. He further submits that the allegations are of the year 2007, where the complaint case was filed on 01.11.2010, in view of that Section 468 Cr.P.C. is attract