RAGHVENDRA SHARMA Vs. ACJM
LAWS(UTN)-2012-7-28
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 27,2012

Raghvendra Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
Acjm Respondents

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.;


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