IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Gurbir Singh, J.
Yogendra Jain & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Anr. – Respondents
CRM-M No. 26874 of 2018
Decided On : 11-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments of both parties. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. the court's observations after hearing arguments. (Para 8) |
| 4. legal definitions and analysis of the offences cited in ipc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
Judgment
Mr. Gurbir Singh , J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR No.0160 dated 21.03.2018 under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC registered at Police Station Jind City, Haryana.
2. In the case in hand, petitioners were earlier purchasing goods from respondent firm of respondent No.2 and were making the payment.
3. The dispute if any, between the parties is non payment of sum of Rs.2,35,000/- which was part of price of goods.
4. The FIR in question was registered on the basis of written complaint, brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the applicants namely Bhichha Ram, Satish Kumar are the Directors of the firm S.J.D. Surgicot Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwani road, Jind and they do the business of manufacturing and selling of absorbent cotton roll I.P. in their firm. The accused-petitioners used to purchase cotton rolls from their aforesaid firm and used to come to Jind for 2-3 times in a month and used to stay there for 4-5 days for purchasing cotton rolls. They kept purchasing cotton rolls from their firm and Rs.3,89,096/- became due towards them. On 17.04.2014 the said accused purchased cotton rolls worth Rs. 2.70 lac more. The accused made payment of the aforementioned sum but out of the goods purchased amounting to Rs.2.70 lac, only Rs.35,000/- was paid and sum of Rs.2,35,000/- is due towards the accused. Accused came to their factory 2-3 times and asked to supply more material but complainant told to deposit the sum due earlier and then only more material would be supplied. They raised the demand from their mobile phone to make the payment of the due amount. Time and again, it was assured that the payment would be made. Now, if they make telephone call to him then he uses abusive language and has blatantly denied to make payment of their amount due and states that if they make telephone call in future then he would get them killed and would cause heavy loss to them and he is not making the payment of the due amount. The accused has committed fraud and has threatened to kill. The said application was inquired into and a case in question was registered under Section 420 /406 of IPC.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there was business relationship between the parties and the respondent No.2 is the Director of one SJD Surgicot Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwani Road, Jind, Haryana and are the manufacturers of Absorbent Cotton Roll I.P. The petitioners are the partners of Link Surgical Udyog, Daal Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior, M.P. and used to purchase cotton rolls from the respondent No.2. In the year 2014, petitioners purchased cotton roll of Rs.2,70,504/- and payment of the said amount was made through cheque which was cleared on 17.10.2014. A copy of the cheque showing the bank transactions is annexed herewith as Annexure P-2. All of a sudden in the year 2018, the respondent No.2 started making pressure on the petitioners that they had purchased cotton rolls of Rs.2,70,000/- in the year of 2014 and did not make entire payment but paid only sum of Rs.35,000/- and sum of Rs.2,35,000/- remains to be due. They asked to pay the same otherwise coercive action would be taken against them and they would face criminal case. The petitioners declined that any such amount remained to be paid. In January 2018, petitioners received a notice from Economic Offence Branch, District Jind that a complaint had been lodged against them by respondent No.2 and they were required to attend the office on 28.01.2018. The petitioners telephoned the respondent No.2 and told him about the payment and it was assured that the matter would be settled. In the year June 2018, police came to Gwalior and police recorded the stat
Shron Michael and others Versus State of Tamilnadu and others
Vijay Kumar Ghai and others versus State of West Bengal and others
Vesa Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and another versus State of Kerala and others
R. Kalyani versus Janak C. Mehta and others
Uma Shankar Gopalika verus State of Bihar and others” (2006) 2 SCC(Cri) 49
Murarilal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh
Inder Mohan Goswami and another versus State of Uttranchal and others
G. Sagar Suri and another versus State of U.P. and others
Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan versus Ram Gopal Poddar and another
The court reiterated that a mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is established, quashing the FIR due to lack of supporting evidence....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.