PANKAJ JAISWAL Vs. ALPS INDUSTRIES LTD SAHIBABAD, DISTRUCT GHAZIABAD (U P)
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-201
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 30,2013

PANKAJ JAISWAL Appellant
VERSUS
Alps Industries Ltd Sahibabad, Distruct Ghaziabad (U P) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present petition is filed assailing the summoning order dated 11.02.2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in criminal complaint case no. 75 of 2009, Alps Industries Ltd. Vs. Pankaj Jaiswal.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia are that a criminal complaint was preferred by the complainant / respondent herein in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, stating therein, that complainant was engaged in the business of yarn in the name and style of Alps Industries Ltd., having Head Office at Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad (U.P.) and branches at Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar and other places; accused / petitioner was also engaged in the textile business in the name and style of M/s Pankaj Textile Ltd. At Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi, Uttar Pradesh; accused / petitioner herein time to time purchased yarns from the complainant / respondent herein amounting of several lacs of rupees; although, accused made payment for some of the consignments purchased, however, Rs. 2,33,321/- were outstanding against the accused / petitioner; instead of clearing the outstanding dues, petitioner took fresh supply of yarns costing Rs. 5,29,996/-; therefore, total Rs. 7,63,317/- were outstanding against the accused / petitioner; request letter, dated 20.06.2008, was issued by the complainant to the accused / petitioner herein requesting the accused / petitioner to make payment of Rs. 7,63,317/- along with 18 per cent interest; despite receiving the request letter dated 20.06.2008 and repeated requests made to the accused / petitioner, he did not make payment of the outstanding dues, consequently, complainant / respondent herein was compelled to issue legal notice on 26.11.2008 by registered post A.D., which was returned with the endorsement 'refused', therefore accused / petitioner may be summoned for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 IPC.
(3.) Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, vide order dated 11.02.2009, having found prima facie offence against the petitioner made out under Section 420 IPC, was pleased to summon the accused / petitioner. However, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate did not find any prima facie case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC, therefore, summoning order was not issued for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the summoning order dated 11.02.2009.;


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