DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I,J. - (1.) This Criminal Revision has been preferred against order dated 21/07/2012, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, in Complaint Case No. 538 of 2012, by means of which the learned Magistrate has summoned the revisionists under Section 420 IPC to face trial.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present revision are as follows:
(3.) The opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint stating that he is owner of the complainant company which is being run by the name M/s. Prem Trading Company, which deals in production of bags of cloth. The accused-revisionists Smt. Bina Khandelwal and Pradeep Khandelwal, both husband and wife are owners and Managers of the Firm by the name Khandelwal Firm which deals in the business of cotton bags. They approached the complainant Firm (O.P. No. 2) for purchase of cloth on assurance that they would make the payment within one month from the date of purchase and would continue to make purchases in future as well. Believing the accused revisionists, the complainant started supplying materials for the first time on 4 September 2002 which continued up to 31 March 2003, during which period material worth Rs. 24,33,737 had been supplied to the accused, out of which the accused made payment of just Rs. 18,19, 815/- in cash and through cheque. By 1 April 2003 an amount of Rs. 6,13,922/- had become due, which was demanded by the complainant but only assurance was received that the same would be paid but it was not actually paid. But still believing the assurance, the complainant Firm further supplied some material worth Rs. 1,75,648/ out of which only Rs. 70,000/- was paid, while Rs. 1,05,648/- remained due. By 1 April 2004 a total amount of Rs. 7,19,570/- became due towards accused, hence the complainant stopped supplying the material. Thereafter again the accused approached the complainant Firm explaining that their business had flopped, and proposed that if the complainant starts supplying goods again, they would make the payment of the current items as well as that of the earlier dues in piecemeal and simultaneously also paid Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant on 28 January 2006 and Rs. 10,000/- again on 6 February 2006 through two different cheques, nos. being 278568 and 278566. Being beguiled by this good intention shown by the accused, the complainant again supplied cotton cloth worth Rs. 4,03,249/- on credit basis on various dates between 18 May 2006 and 22 September 2006. Out of this amount the accused paid only Rs. 2,48,648/- (Rs.2,28, 648/- by way of cheque and Rs. 20,000/- in cash) while the remaining amount of Rs. 1,54, 602/- which pertained to new bills of the dates between 18 May 2006 to 29 September 2006, was not made. Thus total sum of Rs. 8,54,192/- was was not paid, whereon an interest of Rs. 3,68,680/- had also accrued, making the total amount due to be Rs. 12,22,872. For the payment of this amount, the complainant got a notice issued to the accused on 30 August 2010, which was replied by accused on 13 September 2010 mentioning wrong facts. Feeling stunned by the reply sent, the complainant realised about bad intention of the accused to cheat. The accused also sent a counter notice to the complainant complaining therein about the material supplied being not up-to the mark, resulting in loss to him of Rs. 1,50,000/- which they claimed to be paid by the complainant. It is further stated that the intention to cheat the complainant became clear from the fact that as soon as the complainant served notice upon the accused, they sent counter notice to the company about the poor quality while before that they had never complained about the same nor had they brought a claim on any forum. Thus the accused obtained cotton cloth from the complainant worth Rs. 8,54,192/- and gobbled up the same with a mala fide intention to cause harm to the complainant under a well thought out conspiracy.;