- (1.) The instant petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings pursuant to the order dated 06. 9. 2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judidical Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad in Case No. 332 of 2019 (Jasveer Singh Vs. M/s Cogo Freight Pvt. Ltd. ) whereby the applicant has been summoned to face the trial under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
(2.) Heard Shri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Prateek Dawar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.
(3.) The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by opposite party No. 2 on 10. 1. 2019 impleading (i) M/s Cogo Freight Private Limited, (ii) M/s All Track Logistic Private Limited, (iii) M/s Maersk Line India Private LImited and (iv) M/s Star Track Terminals Private Limited through their Directors (hereinafter referred to as "A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 respectively for the sake of brevity) stating therein that opposite party No. 2, the complainant is running a business of imports and exports since 2017 in the name of style of M/s Orbitron Power Private Limited, situated at Main Chirori Road, Ghaziabad and engaged in the manufacture of Inverter and Battery. M/s Cogo Freight Private Limited acts as forwarder of the consignment of the goods imported by the complainant. On 22. 10. 2018, M/s Cogo Freight Private Limited had sent an invoice for the payment of Rs. 1,46,244. 90/-. The complaint immediately sent the aforesaid amount on 24. 10. 2018 through ICICI bank. After receipt of the amount, an employee of A-1 Adnan Shah apprised the complainant that his goods will be delivered in 2-3 days. However, after three days, when the complainant contacted the employee of A-1, he adopted delay dallying tactics. When the complainant approached the custom officials of Dadri Port, they disclosed that it was not his fault, rather due to the fault of the company from where the goods is to be delivered to him or his agent, the goods could not be released. When the complainant again contacted the employee of A-1, he received a mail on 13.11.2018 from A-1 that he had to pay Rs. 40,000/- as additional amount as miscellanous charge. It was replied by the complainant that when initially it was informed that no additional charge is to be paid by him as agreed between A-1 and the complainant, then again on the same day, the complainant received a mail from Adnan Shah, the employee of A-1 that he has to pay Rs. 4,00,020/- as container charge and Rs. 1,32,286/- as warehouse charge. When the complainant enquired as to why they are demanding such charges, he did not receive any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, Gandotra Nareen, an employee of M/s Maersk Line India Private Limited, A-3, informed the complainant through mail on 29. 11. 2018 that they shall reduce 20% of the total amount, the said mail was also sent by A-3 to A-1. Despite this A-1 did not pay any heed when there was no fault on the part of the complainant and A-1 was responsible for committing delay in delivering the goods. On 30. 112018, A-1 again sent a mail to the complainant informing him to collect his goods from the custom and whatever charges are levied, they are on daily basis, but the complainant on 30. 11. 2018 enquired from A-1 that when it was agreed that no extra charge will be paid and it was also assured by A-1 that 20 days time was fixed for delivery of the goods and in this regard, the employee of A-2 and A-3 had assured the complainant, but they started pressuring to deposite the additional charge. When all efforts went in vain, the complainant found himself to be cheated by the accused persons and hence application was moved before the SSP, Ghaziabad on 20. 12. 2018 for taking appropriate action against the aforesaid accused persons. Beside this, a notice was also sent through his counsel on 21. 12. 2018 to all the accused persons, but neither any reply was given nor they returned the money, hence an application under Section 156(3) was moved for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 , 467 , 468 , 471 , 120-B IPC. The said application under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. was supported by an affidavit along with the list of documents, which are 14 in number. The said application was treated as complaint and accordingly the statements of the complainant under Section 200 and his witnesses under Section 202 Cr. P. C were recorded.;