The judgment establishes that in the absence of specific allegations regarding the duties and liabilities of a broker, no prima facie case can be made out against the broker.

JUDGMENT

G.S. ahluwalia, J. - This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint No.4217/2019 pending in the Court of JMFC, Gwalior for offence under Section 420 of IPC.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 420 of IPC against the applicant as well as against M/s Manglam Seeds Company, arun Sharma on the allegations that the complainant/respondent is in the business of sale and purchase of animal fodder. The co-accused arun Sharma is the proprietor of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and is known to the complainant as the complainant had earlier purchased fodder from Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani M/s Manglam Seeds Company and arun Sharma. It was allged that the applicant is a broker. On 10/11/2018 the applicant as well as arun Sharma came to the house of the complainant and persuaded the complainant to purchase chicken feed and also persuaded the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company. It was assured that as soon as the amount is deposited, chicken feed would be supplied. When the complainant did not show any interest by replying that he would think over it, then it is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma again and again persuaded the complainant to purchase chicken feed. accordingly, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company on 14/11/2018. Thereafter, the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma did no supply the chicken feed as assured by them. Whenever it was requested by the complainant, then again and again they assured that chicken feed would be supplied. On 3/12/2018 the complainant went to the warehouse of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and met with the applicant and co-accused arun Sharma and requested to supply the chicken feeds as he has already come along with the loading truck, then the co-accused arun Sharma stated that he has already utilized the amount of Rs.4,70,000/- for his personal use and the chicken feed, which is kept in the warehouse, is mortgaged with the bank and since the money has not been deposited with the bank, therefore, at present he cannot supply the chicken feed and as soon as the goods are released, the chicken feed would be supplied. When the brother of the Praveen Gangil @ Neelu Vs. M/s Parag Traders through Proprietor Rajesh aadwani complainant scolded co-accused arun Sharma that he is unnecessarily harassing him, then the co-accused arun Sharma persuaded that the chicken feed would be supplied as early as possible. It is alleged that the co-accused arun Sharma has not supplied the chicken feed so far and whenever the complainant tried to contact the co-accused arun Sharma and the applicant, then their mobile phones were switched off and he could not contact them and accordingly, it is alleged that the applicant and the co-accused arun Sharma have misappropriated an amount of Rs.4,70,000/-. The statement of the complainant was recorded and the Trial Magistrate by order dated 4/9/2019 took cognizance of the complaint against M/s Manglam Seeds Company, arun Sharma as well as the applicant.

3. Challenging the order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even according to the complainant himself, the applicant was merely a broker and even according to the complainant, the amount was deposited in the account of M/s Manglam Seeds Company and the chicken feed is to be supplied by co-accused arun Sharma. The applicant has no legal liability.

4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the complainant. It is submitted that the applicant was a broker and only on his assurance, he had agreed to pay Rs.4,70,000/- to the co-accused M/s Manglam Seeds Company and its Proprietor arun Sharma. It was the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that th