- (1.) Petitioners have sought the quashing of complaint Annexure P-1 against them under Ss. 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the respondent M/s. Swastika Agro Industries Corporation, Jalandhar. They have also sought the quashing of the summoning order Annexure P-2. Calling upon them to appear before the Court for trial under S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Facts :M/s. Swastika Agro Industries Corporation, Jalandhar filed complaint under Ss. 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code against M/s. Sneh Steel Industries though its proprietor Sneh Lata wife of Girdhari Lal on the allegations that the complainant is dealing in the business of supply of GP Sheets/coils and during the course of business dealings, complainant supplied to M/s Sneh Steel Industries accused No. 1 on the request of Sneh Lata some goods. Sneh Lata-accused No. 2 is the sole proprietor of accused No. 1 and is liable for liabilities and payments and the acts of accused No. 1. Complainant supplied goods to the accused vide different bills. Accused had been making the payment of goods supplied to them by cash/draft on different intervals. Complainant supplied goods to accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 being proprietor of accused No. 1 issued cheque dated 26-2-1996 bearing No. 702461 for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the complainant for the goods supplied to the accused. Complainant took the cheque to the bank for being encashed as the complainant had been assured by the accused that the cheque would be encashed by their banker on presentation and the complainant will receive the payment for the goods supplied. Goods were supplied to the accused for consideration and the payment was made by cheque by the accused. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant deposited the said cheque with the banker of the accused. On presentation, cheque was not honoured and it was returned with the endorsement "insufficient funds". It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant had accepted the cheque from the accused on the assurance given by the accused that it will be honoured on presentation and the goods were supplied to the accused because the cheque was given as consideration for the goods supplied to the accused. Accused have cheated the complainant by giving false assurance at the time of issuing cheque that the cheque will be honoured on presentationand received the goods with dishonest intention of not making the payment. Accused have thus committed criminal breach of trust, apart from committing offence of cheating.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no case falling within the ambit of S. 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused as there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time when the goods were supplied to them by the complainant. It was submitted that there had been business dealing between the complainant and the accused, during the course of which complainant had been supplying goods to the accused and the accused had been making payments by cash/draft. It was submitted that the complainant supplied the goods to the accused and Sneh Lata accused gave cheque to the complainant dated 26-2-1996 to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of the price of the goods supplied. It was submitted that so that the offence under S. 420, IPC was made out against the accused, it was necessary to show that the dishonest intention was present in the mind of the accused at the time when the transaction took place. It was submitted that it was the duty of the accused to show that accused induced the complainant to part with the goods and the complainant parted with the goods, when there was no intention on the part of the accused to make payment but the intention was only to wrest the goods from the complainant by inducing him into the false belief that the payment would be made to him. It was submitted that both are engaged in business. Complaiant had been supplying goods to the accused vide different bills and the accused had been making payments of the bills of the goods supplied on different intervals. It was submitted that it was a simple transaction between the two concerns which gave rise only to civil liability.;