- (1.) HEARD Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh-III and Mr. Nishant Singh for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Bhanot for the respondent no.2 and the learned AGA for the respondent no.1 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a petition under section 482 CrPC for quashing the summoning order dated 31.7.2006 passed in the complaint case no. 1780 of 2006, Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (C.S.) Limited vs. Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Ltd. and others, whereby the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.) Ghaziabad has summoned the petitioners under section 420 IPC for trial. The respondent no.2 M/s Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (C.S.) Limited is a private limited company . The complaint on its behalf was filed by Mr. Rahul Jain as an authorised representative of the company. The said company is involved in the field of construction and also in the field of sale of coal etc. and had been granted a contract for carrying out certain works in the Tehri Dam Project and for execution of the said work the Company was in need of GIC sheets of special quality. The petitioners no. 2 and 3 who were directors of Nandini Roofing System Pvt. Limited informed the respondent company that they had experience of manufacturing GIC sheets of the special quality and had also necessary machinery and equipments etc. for such manufacturing. Accordingly the respondent no.2 placed a written order dated 5.11.2005 for supply of 120 metric tonnes of GIC sheets on certain terms and conditions. The raw materials were supplied by the respondent no.2 and as per the agreement, the petitioners were required to supply GIC sheets within sixteen weeks from the date of the order. In execution of the agreement, the respondent no.2 gave a bank draft of Rs. four lac on 24.5.2005 and Rs. ten lac on 25.6.2005 to the petitioners. A sum of Rs. ten lac was also paid on 18.8.2005. In this way, the respondent no.2 paid a total sum of Rs. twenty four lac to the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent no.2 supplied 46.35 Metric tonnes raw materials to the petitioners and the cost of raw materials was Rs. eighteen lac. Despite the supply of raw materials by the respondent no.2 and payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioners did not make any supply of GIC sheets and had been giving false assurances. The petitioners company through letter dated 27.11.2005 gave an assurance in writing that Roll Tools would be manufactured upto 30.11.2005 and the final trial production would start within 4-5 days. Despite that assurance no supply was made. On inquiry, the respondent no.2 found that the petitioners had no machinery and other facilities for manufacturing GIC sheets and they had given false assurances and in this way they misappropriated Rs. twenty four lac and also raw materials worth Rs. eighteen lac.
(3.) THE respondent no.2 moved an application under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') before the concerned Magistrate, who treated the application as complaint. In support of the complaint, the complainant was examined under section 200 of the Code and various documents were also filed. The learned Magistrate, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, held that there was sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint against the petitioners under section 420 IPC. However, the learned Magistrate held that no offence under section 406 IPC was made out. Accordingly the learned Magistrate passed the summoning order dated 31.7.2006.;