- (1.) K. N. Sinha, J. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the entire proceedings of complaint case No. 4848 of 2002, Puran Chand Pandey v. Densen Joseph, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504 and 506 I. P. C. , Police Station Mandi Saharanpur, including impugned order dated 5-7-2005, summoning the petitioner as an accused, pending in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division/judicial Magistrate) Court No. 21, Saharanpur.
(2.) THE brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Sales Manager with M/s. Somaan Brothers FZC, C-3-18/08, Post Office Box No. 7803, Saif Zone, Sharjah, U. A. E where he worked from 15-6-2002 to 3-2-2003. THE respondent No. 2 is engaged in the manufacture of wood carving materials, which is prepared and sold at different places. A purchase order was placed by M/s. Somaan Brothers FZC, Saif Zone, Sharjah, U. A. E. to the respondent No. 2, M/s. Shivam Enterprises, Gali No. 14, Peer Wali Gali, Mandi Samiti Road, Saharanpur on 15th of August, 2002 for purchase of certain wood carving materials with the terms that goods must be shipped in one lot within a period of 45 days from the date of the order and timely delivery of the consignment was very important. THE copy of the purchase order is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. THE debit note was prepared on 30-9-2002 by I. C. I. Container Line Pvt. Ltd. for the consignment of M/s. Shivam Enterprises which was booked to M/s. Somaan Brothers. THE copy of the debit note dated 30-9-2002 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. THE proforma invoice and bill were also prepared by M/s. Shivam Enterprises Saharanpur, respondent No. 2, which are Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. THE purchase order, Proforma Invoice debit note, Bill of Lading etc. indicate that the purchase was made by M/s. Somaan Brothers from respondent No. 2 which were booked directly in the name of M/s. Somaan Brother, Sharjah, U. A. E. and the petitioner has nothing to do with this purchase order or consignment. THE petitioner worked with M/s. Somaan Brothers from 15-6-2002 to 3-2-2003 and thereafter he left M/s. Somaan Brothers and had come back to India and had joined M/s. Vertex Customer Management, 3rd Floor, DLF Centre Court, DLF City, Phase V, Gurgaon, Haryana. The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint case on 4-10-2004 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur stating that the goods worth Rs. 1,47,000/- and total amount of Rs. 1,59,000/- was received by petitioner but petitioner did not make the payments. When the petitioner had come to District Saharanpur, the respondent No. 2 approached the petitioner but the petitioner beat the respondent No. 2 with "danda" which resulted in injuries to him. The Magistrate summoned the petitioner for the said offence. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was never present at Saharanpur on 5-9-2004 but in his office petitioner has also received salary for the month of September, 2004. There was, thus, no question of beating the respondent No. 2. The salary slip is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It appears that there was some invoice regarding payment of consignments which was despatched to M/s. Somaan Brothers. This payment has nothing to do and the petitioner who was only an employee of M/s. Somaan Brothers, cannot make any payment from his pocket but the petitioner was an employee and available in India. The respondent No. 2 thought it fit to attack the petitioner so as to take out money from the petitioner whereas the petitioner is nobody in the firm and has got nothing to do with the consignment. The petitioner had never visited Saharanpur at any point of time. Not only this the entire episode is connected with the payment of money of M/s. Somaan Brothers and respondent No. 2 on account of contract entered into between the parties and the matter is purely of civil nature and money can be recovered by filing a civil suit and not by filing a complaint. The respondent No. 2 has filed counter-affidavit stating that the contents of para 3 of the writ petition are not admitted, fabricated and concocted as the petitioner himself signed as Director. The petitioner caused injury to respondent No. 2 when he was at Saharanpur on 5-9-2004. The goods have been supplied to M/s. Somaan Brothers to set forth that he was director and is responsible for the payment. The petitioner approached police station of Kotwali Dehat to lodge a report but the same was not lodged, then he approached S. S. P. , Saharanpur. He also did not take any action. Thereafter he filed a complaint case. The respondent No. 2 got injury and it is for the trial Court to examine the matters and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a rejoinder reiterating the incident as disclosed in the main affidavit. I have heard Sri R. B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mod. Usuf, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2.;