G.S.N.Tripathi - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings in complaint case No. 784/94 Dharampal Gupta v. G. S. Tyagi under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and Section 420 of the I.P.C., P. S. Kichha, District Nainital pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate Rudrapur Nainital.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Nainital (Annexure! 7 to the petition). The main allegations are that the petitioner, who is Director of Meerut Agra Mills Ltd. purchased rice worth Rs. 11,82,825 in December, 1992 and issued two cheques in favour of the complainant (respondent No. 2). The first; cheque was for Rs. 6,32,825. The second cheque was for Rs. 5,96,300. The first cheque is not in dispute. The amount of the second cheque was not paid as the petitioner had closed his account in his Bank. On an information, a notice dated 15.10.93 was sent through his counsel to the petitioner calling upon him to make the payment within 15 days or face legal consequence. That was not done by the petitioner. Therefore, the aforesaid complaint was filed on 24.3.94 imputing mala fide and bad motive on the part of the petitioner. The defence mainly is that after the issuance of the cheque, an intimation was received that the quality of rice supplied by the respondent No. 2 was not upto the mark and it was found by the International Inspection Agency as unfit for human consumption. Therefore, the petitioner stopped the payment, because his payment itself had been stopped by the buyer firm in Romania. So, it cannot be said that there existed any bad motive or dishonest intention on 12.7.93 while issuing the cheque. The main point for consideration in this case is as to whether there was a bad motive right from the very beginning to make payment. Annexure 1 is the inspection notice made by the International Agency having its office in Switzerland showing that out of 7,79,949 bags, 3897.450 metric tons goods were found to be unfit for human consumption. This is the inspection note dated 25.5.93. M/s. M. M. Exports through whom the petitioner had exported the goods, also informed the petitioner by the letter dated 6.8.93 (Annexure 2 to the petition) that the merchandised was not found to be fit for human consumption. Therefore, the money had been with held by the buyer firm. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 9.8.93 ((Annexure 2 to the petition) that the payment by the Romanian buyer firm had been stopped as the goods were found to be unfit for human consumption. Thereafter, a notice dated, 15.10.93 was received from the respondent through his counsel showing that since the cheque was not honoured, either the petitioner should make payment within 15 days or face legal consequence.
(3.) THESE facts are not denied in this case. Therefore, if the petitioner stopped payment after receipt of an intimation that the goods or part of the goods were found to be unfit for human consumption, which information was naturally received after 12.7.93, it will not be just and judicially permissible to infer that even on the date of issue of the Cheque i.e. 12.7.93, the petitioner had a dishonest or mala fide intention not to make payment to the respondent No. 2. Under these circumstances: without going deeper into matter; I find that the conduct of the petitioner can be nothing but just and business like. Hence no criminal motive can be imputed to him. In absence of any motive and mens rea the prosecution of the petitioner was not permissible in law.;