IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.
JAGDISH VALECHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. and others – Respondent
M. Cr. C. No. 8307 of 2016
Decided On : 27-04-2017
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 98/2016 registered by Police Station University, District Gwalior registered for offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The undisputed fact is that the applicant is one of the Director of M/s Valecha Engineering Ltd., Valecha Chambers, 4th Floor, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra.
3. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that the complainant Ramnivas Sharma lodged a FIR against the applicant and four other persons on the allegation that the complainant is the partner of M/s Shri Ram Sharma Stone Crusher, Gwalior. The applicant and the other co-accused persons made a request to the complainant to supply Two Lac Metric Tone “crushed stone aggregate” at the work site of Four Lane Etawah-Mainpuri-Kurwali Road Project as Valecha Engineering Ltd. (hereinafter “V.E.L. in short) had got the contract for construction of Four Lane at Etawah-Mainpuri-Kurwali Road. Accordingly a purchase order dated 10-4-2014 was placed by V.E.L. through one Manoj Kumar Pandey, Project Manager, Valecha Engineering Ltd. The work order has been placed on record as Annexure P/1 along with this petition. It was further alleged that an agreement between M/s Shri Ram Sharma Stone Crusher and V.E.L. was executed at Gwalior on 10-4-2014 and 10-7-2014. It was mentioned that M/s Shri Ram Sharma Stone Crusher would supply the “crushed stone aggregate” at the construction site and the payments shall be made by cheque. Accordingly, Shri Ram Sharma Stone Crusher supplied the “crushed stone aggregate” to V.E.L. on its construction site and the cheques were given to the complainant. It was further alleged that those cheques were ultimately returned back by the Bank on the ground of “insufficient funds”. It was alleged that in between 30-4-2014 and 15-2-2015 total “crushed stone aggregate” worth Rs. 14,40,13,779/- was supplied and out of which a total amount of Rs. 6,47,84,000/- was outstanding for which the cheques were given which ultimately stood bounced on the ground of “insufficient funds”, as a result of which the complainant is on the verge of bankruptcy. It was further alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons are deliberately not making payment of the outstanding amount as it was the intention of the applicant and other co-accused persons to cheat the complainant. It was further alleged that on 7-3-2016, the complainant from his mobile No. 9425111696 contacted the co-accused Dinesh Valecha on his mobile No. 8450925745 and again requested that his payments may be made but in reply the co-accused Dinesh Valecha started abusing the complainant and gave a threat that in case a demand is made for payment by the complainant then he would get him abducted and would kill him. Thus, it was alleged that the applicant and the other accused persons have cheated the complainant and inspite of supply of “crushed stone aggregate”, the applicant and other co-accused persons have not made the payment. On this complaint, the police registered the FIR for offence punishable under sections 420, 406, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Challenging the FIR lodged by the complainant, it is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the investigation is still in progress and no charge-sheet has been filed so far. It is further submitted that in the year 2012-2013, a contract was awarded to V.E.L. for construction of Four Way Lane Road from Etawah-Mainpuri Districts (U.P.). For the construction of road, the V.E.L. entered into an agreement with the respondent No. 5 for supply of “crushed stone aggregate”. Although the goods were supplied and part payments were made by V.E.L. but as cheques amounting to Rs. 6,47,84000/- stood bounced, therefore, the complainant has also filed a criminal complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant and c
State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604
Lalita Kumari vs. State of U.P. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 636
Padal Venkata Rama Reddy vs. Koveuri Satyanarayana Reddy reported in (2011) 12 SCC 437
R. P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866
State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy
Kavita vs. State 2000 CrLJ 315
B. S. Joshi vs. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675
Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs. S. Bangarappa
Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque
Janata Dal vs. H. S. Chowdhary
Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
Indian Oil Corpn. vs. NEPC India Ltd.
State of Orissa vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre
State of Orissa vs. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan reported in (2012) 4 SCC 547
Vinod Raghuvanshi vs. Ajay Arora
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat
ARCI vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd.
V. Y. Jose vs. State of Gujarat
Sharon Michael vs. State of T.N.
Sesami Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. State of Meghalaya reported in (2014) 16 SCC 711
Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Mohd. Siraj reported in (2014) 14 SCC 29
Ganga Dhar Kalita vs. State of Assam
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460
Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd.
State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla
Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi
Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd.
Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque
G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P.
Vijayander Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan
A.V.M. Sales Corpn. vs. Anuradha Chemicals (P.) Ltd.
A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. vs. A.P. Agencies
Angile Insulations vs. Davy Ashmore India Ltd.
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal Ltd.
New Moga Transport Co. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.