Quashing--Criminal Breach of trust--Commercial transaction or money transaction is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating will elude from such a transaction.

Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that the petitioner East India Udyog Limited (for brevity “the petitioner-company”) was engaged in manufacturing and repairing of electric transformers. It supplied over 5000 transformers to Haryana State Electricity Board (for short “the HSEB”). It was supposed to rectify the defects during the guarantee period in normal routine. About 50 transformers of complainant Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (in short “the DHBVNL”) (respondent No.2) were found defective/burnt and petitioner-company was required to remove the defects. The estimated cost of these transformers was stated to be Rs.6 lacs.

2. According to the DHBVNL that petitioner-company picked up the indicated defective transformers on 14.12.1998 for repair, which were required to be returned in a working condition within a period of 45 days. The petitionercompany has neither repaired nor returned the transformers within the stipulated period, causing huge loss to it (DHBVNL).

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the complainant-DHBVNL claimed that petitioner-company has cheated it, illegally retained its transformers, which were neither repaired nor returned, causing huge loss to it. That being the position and in the wake of complaint by the complainant Assistant General Manager of DHBVNL, the present case was registered against the petitioner-company, by means of FIR, bearing No.650 dated 4.12.2008 (Annexure P1) on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 406 IPC by the Police of Police Station Sector 7, Faridabad. After completion of investigation, the police has already submitted the final police report against the petitioner-company.

4. Instead of repairing and returning the transformers to the DHBVNL or submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the petitioner-company has straightway jumped to file the present petition for quashing the FIR (Annexure P1), invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia pleading that the dispute in question is of civil nature and no criminal proceedings can be initiated against it at this belated stage. According to petitioner-company that since its amount over Rs.97 lacs has been withheld by the DHBVNL and the matter is pending before the arbitrator, so, it (petitioner-company) is not required to repair and return the transformers. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner company sought to quash the FIR in the manner indicated hereinbefore.

5. The respondents refuted the prayer of petitioner-company and filed their respective written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the petition and locus standi of petitioner-company. It was claimed that after completion of the investigation, the final police report under section 173 (2) Cr.PC/challan was presented in the Court. As the petitioner-company has dishonestly, mis-appropriated the entrusted property, committed breach of trust and cheated the DHBVNL, therefore, no ground for quashing the FIR is made out. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the replies and in order to avoid repetition, suffice it to say that the respondents reiterated the allegations contained in the FIR (Annexure P1). However, it will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.

7. Ex facie the main argument of learned counsel that petitioner-company has been falsely im