Ashim Kumar Roy, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who has been charge sheeted under section 406/420 I.P.C. has approached this court for quashing of the same on the grounds as follows, (a) The advance if any for supplying cotton bales was made by the de facto complainant in course of running commercial transactions and there cannot be any criminal offence. (b) Before issuance of warrant of arrest the court has not complied with the provisions of section 41A Cr.P.C. which is contrary to the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in : (2014) 8 SCC 273. (c) The order of taking cognizance does not reflect any application of mind. (d) The provision of rule 183 of Criminal Rules and Orders has not been followed. (e) Order sheet has not been recorded in form M -16. (f) No case can said to be made out when admittedly the petitioner sent the goods but the same was lost in transit.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Considered his respective submission. A quashing of charge sheet is always permissible when it appears that on the face of the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the materials collected in support of the same no offence is made out. According to the F.I.R. it is the case of the de facto complainant that his company advanced a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs and odd to the company of the accused for supplying 116 cotton bales. It is his further case although the accused persons promised to deliver the cotton bales shortly but after receipt of advance they remained silent and no goods was delivered. Thereafter, on several occasions the accused person was contacted but there was no response.
(3.) ON the face of those allegations and in its entirety, it cannot be said that no offence for which charge sheet has been submitted is made out. This is a case where advance was obtained for supplying of cotton bales and therefore when the accused did not supply, a prima facie case of cheating is made out.;