Decided on September 01,2016

Kirtibai Premraj Jain Appellant
Ashok Narayan Bagade Respondents


V.K.JADHAV, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.1999 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Jalgaon in R.C.C. No. 273 of 1999, thereby issuing process for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. against the applicants original accused 1 and 2, this criminal application has been filed.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:- a) The applicant company deals with manufacturing of pharmaceuticals products and marked all over India. Respondent No. 1 is the original complainant, who was appointed as Carting and Forwarding Agent (for short "C. and F." agent) on 2.2.1999 of the company for Jalgaon area. In compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties, respondent No. 1 complainant deposited initially an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereafter of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the applicant company. However, thereafter due to some financial loss sustained by applicant company, the company gave a letter to respondent No. 1 complainant, contending therein that the company does not wish to continue him as an agent and further assured him to clear his dues. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 1 complainant lodged a complaint to police station. The concerned police, finding that the dispute is purely of civil nature, informed him accordingly. Consequently, respondent No. 1 complainant filed private complaint before the J.M.F.C. Jalgaon. The learned J.M.F.C. after reading the complaint and verification statement of respondent No. 1 complainant and on perusal of the documents filed on record, found a prima facie case against the applicants accused and accordingly issued process against the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Hence, this criminal application for quashing of order of issuance of process passed by the learned J.M.F.C. at Jalgaon, as aforesaid.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the year 1997-98, the applicant company sustained heavy loss due to storm at Kandla Port and submerger of a loaded sheet full of drug cartilage which were to be exported by the applicant company abroad. Consequently, the company had started manufacturing the drugs anticides, cough syrups, drugs relating to digestive system etc. However, the applicant company could not come out from the financial losses sustained by it. Thus, the applicant company has published an advertisement in daily newspaper "Times of India" for appointment of C. and F. agent for the company. In response to the said advertisement, the respondent complainant had approached the company and accordingly an agreement came to be executed between them. In compliance with the terms and conditions of the said agreement, by way of security deposit, the respondent complainant has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- and thereafter Rs. 7,00,000/- with the applicant company and the same is not disputed by the applicant company. The respondent complainant however, found it is difficult to go with the applicant company and called upon the applicant company to refund the deposit. Before executing the agreement, even the respondent complainant has paid visit to the company at Baroda to verify the functioning of the applicant company. Furthermore, he had a personal talks with applicant original accused Nos. 1, 3 to 6 at Baroda. After satisfying himself, respondent complainant entered into an agreement with the applicant company and accordingly deposited the security amount in compliance with the terms and conditions of the said agreement. Learned counsel submits that there is no substance in the allegations of the complainant that respondent complainant came to be appointed as C and F agent merely as show and after procuring the said amount from him, said C and F agency allotted in his favour came to be cancelled with some ulterior motive. The dispute is of civil nature. The applicant company has also became sick. The applicant company has never denied the amount deposited by the respondent complainant. The respondent complainant is in the list of unsecured creditors and the applicant company has also issued letter informing the respondent complainant that company would be clearing his dues at the earliest. Learned counsel submits that in the given set of allegations, ingredients of Sections 406, 418 and 420 are not at all attracted. Learned counsel for the applicants places reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Parida v. Sachdeva College Ltd. reported in 2012 (0) AIJ-DL 1357122. ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.