Mere non-payment of dues in a commercial transaction does not constitute offences under IPC sections 420 or 506 without evidence of fraudulent intent or specific threats.

JUDGMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) on behalf of the Petitioners seeking quashing of thesummoning Order dated 29.01.2015, whereby Ld. MM summonedPetitioner No.1/Sh. Amit Jain for offences under Sections 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) andPetitioner No.2/Sh. Nimit Jain for the offence under Section 506 , in CC No. 77/4/14 titled, “Murti Udyog Ltd. vs. Sh.Amit Jain and Ors.” and the proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Petitioner No.1 was the sole proprietor of M/s P.P. Metal Industries, operating at 458/466, Shambhu Nath Compound, Friends Colony Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi. The said business was closed in December, 2012.

3. Petitioner No.2 is the real brother of Petitioner No.1. Apart from the Petitioners, one Rajender Prasad Jain was initially arrayed as an accused in the Complaint and summoned under Section 506 IPC . Subsequently, after the passing of the summoning Order, the Respondent sought amendment of the Memo of Parties and the father of the Petitioners was arrayed as an accused in place of Sh. Rajender Prasad Jain, but he has already expired.

4. The Respondent alleged in the Complaint, that Sh. Rajender Prasad Jain was a partner in M/s P.P. Metal Industries, and that Petitioner No.1, through a Broker, contacted the Respondent/M/s Murti Udyog Ltd. on 19.09.2012 for supply of Aluminium wire rods, which were supplied to the Respondent on 30.09.2012. An Invoice No. 347 for a sum of Rs.15,23,214/- was raised. It is further alleged that the goods were transported through M/s Puran Bharat Road Carrier vide G.R. No. 60987 dated 30.09.2012 by Truck No. HR-55C-2536, received on the early morning of 01.10.2012, and payment was agreed to be made by 06.10.2012

5. It is further alleged that when the Respondent’s representative approached Petitioner No.1 on 06.10.2012 for payment, Petitioner No.1 expressed inability due to non-availability of funds and promised payment on 08.10.2012. It was claimed that Petitioner No.1 was not available on 08.10.2012, and Petitioner No.2 and the father of the Petitioners informed the representative that Petitioner No.1 was hospitalized and asked him to return after two days.

6. It is further alleged that on 11.10.2012, the premises of the Firm were found locked and the stock removed. The Respondent claims that upon contacting Petitioner No.1 telephonically, Petitioner No.2 attended the call and stated that the Petitioners had suffered losses. It is further alleged that the Petitioners threatened the Respondent and the broker with dire consequences and claimed to have links with local goons. The Petitioners therefore, cheated the Respondent, for which a Complaint dated 28.01.2013 was made to the DCP, Daryaganj, but no action was taken.

7. The Respondent filed a Complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Ld. MM. In pre-summoning evidence, the Respondent Company examined CW-1, Sh. Naveen Goel, the Director who deposed that all three accused were partners in M/s P.P. Metal Industries and that the goods were received by the staff of the accused, though he could not disclose the name of any such staff.

8. CW-2, Sh. Maya Ram, who was running M/s Puran Bharat Road Carrier, deposed that delivery was made on 01.10.2012, but he could not tell the name of the staff who received th