TARUN KUKREJA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
B.C. Kandpal, J. -
(1.)BY way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 479 of 2003 (Old No. 1913 of 2001), Smt. Saroj Mehta Vs. Tarun Kukreja & others pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate - 1st, Dehradun. Brief facts giving rise to this petition as per the petition are that the petitioner's company are the registered companies under the Companies Act from 1955 and these companies are manufacturing units of different kinds of furniture. The petitioner No. 1 is the Director of M/s De Bono Flexcom (I) Ltd. And the petitioner No. 2 is the Director of M/s Delite Kom Ltd. The respondent No. 2 is also doing the business of furniture under the name and style of M/s Mehta Handicrafts. Therefore, a contract arrived at between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 with regard to the supply of the furniture. However, subsequently some dispute arose between the parties and the respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners before the court of Judicial Magistrate - 1st, Dehradun under Section 420, 120B I.P.C. The court below summoned the petitioners have challenged before this Court by way of this petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.)HEARD Sri Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record.
It would be pertinent to mention some paragraphs of the notice sent by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners through his counsel Mr. Anjali Gusain, which is contained as Annexure No. 8 to the petition. Paragraph No. 14 of the notice runs as follows: -
14. That instead of honouring your commitments you have made an illegal and wrong demand in your letter dated 07.09.2002 to my client which letter was duly replied.
(3.)THEREAFTER , paragraphs No. 16 and 17 of this notice are also relevant which are reproduced as below: -
16. That my client is incurring an additional expenditure of Rs. 3,000/ - per month for storage of the defective/damaged goods lying in Dehradun. The approximate cost of the returnable goods is Rs. 70,000/ -(Rupees Seventy Thousand approx.)
17. That despite several verbal and written requests and demands you have not honoured your part of the contract with my client and it appears that you had intentions, to defraud my client right from the beginning of your dealings with my client. You have willfully deceived my client and indulged in wrongful gain and unjust enrichment by withholding my clients dues and are also liable for damages and breach of contract."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.