A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.

JUDGMENT :

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

After an extensive arguments, which has been extended by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of the C-482 Application, which arises out of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 3489 of 2016, Pankaj Vaish Vs. Amit Kishore and others, where the applicants have been summoned to be tried by an order dated 06.07.2018, to be tried for the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC, by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. The judgment was reserved yesterday and consequently, the matter has been placed today for delivery of the judgment.

3. The factual backdrop of the case are, that the claim of the applicant No.1 in the present C482 Application, as pleaded was that the applicant No.1 is a Director of the company called as “M/s Marc Laboratories Ltd., Lucknow, and so is the status of the applicant No.2, who has the connectivity with the functioning of the firm in the capacity of being a Senior Vice President of the Company, whereas, the status of the applicant Nos.2 and 3, is that of the Managing Directors also.

4. The respondent No.2 claims himself to be the proprietor of a firm called as “Vaish Agencies”, situated at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. As amongst the applicants and respondent No.2, there was an agreement executed between them which was governing the terms and conditions which were settled as on 4th February, 2013, whereby, the respondent No.2 was said to be appointed as a consignee / sale agent of the firm of the applicants on the basis of the commission to be paid @ 3.5 percent.

5. It is contended that the applicants took three cheques unsigned and undated from the respondent No.2, as a security for the purposes of establishment of the aforesaid agreement for agency as it was executed on 4th February, 2013.

6. It is contended by the respondent No.2, that he was entitled for commission, as according to the aforesaid settled rate of 3.5 percent for every transaction, which has been dealt with by respondent No.2, and according to him, he contended, that owing to the business transaction, which was carried by him on behalf of the company of the applicants, of which, they there the office bearer, a commission of Rs.35,000/- p.m., which he was entitled to receive, which has ultimately amounted to Rs.5,93,795/- as on the date of the registration of the complaint was not remitted despite request.

7. The respondent No.2 contended, that when despite of the several notices being issued by respondent No.2, to the applicants, raising a demand with regard to the payment of commission, which he claimed to be entitled to be paid in terms of the agreement dated 4th February, 2013, when it was not paid, a legal notice was sent by respondent No.2, to the applicant claiming the commission by sending the same by a registered post on 1st February, 2016.

8. The complainant / respondent No.2, contended that upon the receipt of the notice on 1st February, 2016, the first reaction, which he has received from the present applicants was, that the applicant No.1 abused him on a telephone and threatened him of dire consequences by asserting thereof, that he would be visiting Kashipur and would be teaching a lesson to him for raising a demand by issuance of a notice on 1st February, 2016.

9. It is not only that, after exertion of the said threat through telephone, an actual action too followed on 17th June, 2016, when at about 10:30 a.m., it was alleged that the applicants together with others physically started abusing the respondent No.2, and there started a scuffle between them, it was alleged that applicant Nos. 2 and 3 had tried to snatch the cash box of respondent No.2 and thereafter, when the respondent No.2 has raised hue and cry, two persons, namely as Satyam Agarwal and Ajay Agarwal, came to the scene, who would be treated as to be the witnesses of the incident, which has chanced on 17th June, 2016.

10. The complainant in his complaint as submitted before the Co