A RAVINDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMONG 4 accused, the petitioners are A.1 to A.3. It is the case of the prosecution that from 4.10.2004 to 1.1.2005, the petitioners are alleged to have introduced A.4 to the complainant for purchase of rice on credit basis on the promise that A.4 may give more business to the complainant. Believing the same, it is alleged that the complainant delivered rice to the value of Rs.20,66,666/- and after purchase of the same from the complainant, the petitioners, in collusion and conspiracy, with A.4, alleged to have sold the same for lesser value in the open market and thereby failed to pay the amount to the complainant and thereby caused loss to the complainant and obtained unlawful gain.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the case of the prosecution, as per the first information report, that the petitioner introduced A.4 to the complainant, but the fact remains that the petitioners are brothers and A.4 is the sister's son of the petitioners. He also submits that A.4 was already having business transaction with the complainant even prior to 4.10.2004 and under such circumstances, introduction of A.4 by the petitioners to the complainant may not arise at all. THE learned counsel relied on certain invoices filed in the typed set to substantiate the same and also submits that the complainant herself purchased rice from the petitioners and issued cheque and subsequently, when the cheque got bounced, proceedings were initiated against the complainant and all these factors have been suppressed in the case of the prosecution and a false case has been foisted.

(3.) THEREFORE, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. Hence the petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. Since the case is pending from 2006, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the case on priority basis in accordance with law.