Sr. No. 11

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CRMC No. 441/2014

M/s Shree Momai Roto Cast Ltd and

another

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Advocate

Vs

Harish Kumar Dogra

.…. Respondent(s)

Through: None.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

ORDER

1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing

the order dated 25.8.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Samba

(hereinafter referred to as the trial court) by virtue of which the process has been

issued against the petitioners for commission of offences under sections 406, 420

RPC in a complaint, titled, Harish Kumar Dogra vs. M/s Shree Momai Roto Cast

Ltd. and another.

2.

The respondent, after causing his appearance initially, has not

chosen to appear subsequently. As such, this Court is examining the issue on the

merits.

3.

Mr. Suneel Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

argued that no offence under sections 406, 420 RPC is made out against the

petitioners and the civil dispute has been given a criminal colour just to pressurise

the petitioners to succumb to the unjustified demands made by the respondent.

4.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition are

that a complaint was filed by the respondent for commission of offences under

sections 406, 420 RPC on the ground that the respondent established an industrial

2 CRMC No. 441/2014

unit at IGC Phase 1, Samba under the name and style of <M/s G M Rotoplast

Industries= and the petitioner-company through its Director, gave false and

vexatious assurance with regard to the sale of plant and machinery, installation

and commissioning of the same at IGA Phase 1, Samba. The respondent being

convinced by the assurance of the petitioner-company placed an order for the

purchase of plant and machinery Bi-Axial 4 Arm Turret Type Roto Moudling

Machine model-SM/4A-350(3000 Ltrs capacity) Oven size 3500 DX 2600 Depth,

3Nos of straight arm, 1 No. of offset ( Inter changeable with straight Arm) Diesel

burner, panel Board with PLC with motor gear boxes etc,02 Nos. of cooling fan,

Pulveriser Machine and Extruder Machine and other allied items. It is further

contended that at the time of placing of order, the petitioner-company had

specifically undertaken the supervision, erection and commissioning of the

aforesaid machinery at the premises of the respondent and further assured to

depute the technicians for 10 days to carry out the supervision of erection and

commissioning of machinery.

5.

The respondent claims to have paid whole of the amount i.e. Rs.

48,74,000/- to the petitioner-company and on receipt and acknowledgement of the

same, the petitioner company delivered only lose parts of the machinery and the

same were admitted to have been received by the respondent. It was further

pleaded that in violation of the express undertaking and agreement between the

petitioner-company and the respondent, the petitioner-company failed to depute

the technicians and despite repeated calls nothing was done by the petitioner-

company. As such, the respondent claims to have been cheated by the petitioner-

company.

6.

After recording the statement of respondent and one witness, the

learned trial court vide order dated 25.08.2014, issued the process against the

petitioners for commission of offences under sections 420, 406 RPC.

3 CRMC No. 441/2014

7.

From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the only grievance

of the respondent is with regard to the non-sending of the technicians by the

petitioner-company and by no means it can be taken as ground for launching

criminal proceedings against the petitioner-company. The dispute between t