RAGHVENDRA SHARMA Vs. ACJM
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that petitioner Raghvendra Sharma was a proprietor of a Firm
dealing in Ayurvedic medicines/products at Rishikesh, whereas
private respondent no.2 (complainant) Mahendra Sharma was a
wholesale dealer of those medicines/products. The private
respondent supplied certain goods to petitioner at Rishikesh
but the latter could not make the payments, in full, so this
complaint was filed by complainant on 13.2.2007 in the court
of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. The
complainant examined himself u/s 200 Cr.P.C. whereas he got
examined one Pawan u/s 202 Cr.P.C. After examining the
witnesses as well as the contents of complaint, learned
Magistrate passed the impugned order of cognizance on
24.3.2007, asking the petitioner to stand trial for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that in fact he did not place any order of any medicines/products,
nonetheless the same were supplied by the private respondent
which were returned, however the private respondent refused to
accept the same back, as such, no question of payment, on the
part of petitioner, arises. As per the complaint, the total
amount, wherefor the dispute arose, is Rs.27,436/- and
according to the petitioner, the same is highly exaggerated,
inasmuch as, no such payment is due against him for the
medicines sent by the complainant, more so when the
products/medicines were returned.
It was also argued that in fact the complainant was a
Clearing and Forwarding (C&F) agent of some company known
as "Vedic Medicare Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow" however when the said
company terminated his dealership, the complainant sent these
products/medicines to the petitioner. This was also one of the
reasons of returning the goods back to him. It has further been
argued that at all the matter was not of criminal breach of trust
as envisaged u/s 405 IPC, whereas learned counsel for the
private respondent harps on that it was strictly covered within
the said definition.
Having gone through the contents of the complaint, the Court is of the opinion that the instant matter does not come
within the ambit of Section 405 IPC and thus, there was no
question of criminal breach of trust. It was purely a small
business transaction wherein the differences cropped up
between the two merchants. So, the criminal law cannot be put
into motion to exert the pressure for recovery of the money,
particularly when the goods/products, sent by the
complainant, were returned.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, the petition is hereby accepted. Impugned order of cognizance dated
24.3.2007, as also the proceedings of complaint case no.169 of 2007, Mahendra Sharma Vs. Raghvendra, are hereby quashed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.