C.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings initiated through a complaint filed by the respondent on 1st April, 1977 for getting the petitioners punished under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The respondent, who is the complainant, has not chosen to appear in spite of service.
(2.) IT was mentioned in the complaint that Dinesh Saha petitioner No. 1 and his wife Smt. Munada Sundri Saha, petitioner No. 2 were carrying on business at Calcutta and that they had placed an order with the respondent carrying on business at Hissar for the supply of steel pipes worth about Rs. 50,000/ -. The order was placed on 13th January, 1976 and the supply of goods was made on 17th January, 1976. There were then several occasions on which the petitioners were requested for making payment but ultimately petitioner No. 2 tinder the directions of petitioner No. 1 is said to be have issued a cheque dated 5th August, 1976 for an amount of Rs. 25000/ -, which was subsequently dishonoured. The facts as appearing from the complaint do not at all show that there was any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners on the date supply of goods was made. It was an ordinary business transaction in respect of which payment was to be made by the petitioners subsequent to the delivery. The time that intervened between the placing of the order and the actual issue of cheque indicates that the payment was not to be made at the time of the delivery of the goods. It has been held in Rajpal v. The State of Punjab, (1977) 4 C.L.T. 254, that where the accused took certain amount from the complainant on loan basis and subsequently a cheque was issued for the said amount by the accused in favour of the complainant, the dishonour of the cheque would not amount to commission of offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the petitioners can only be deemed to have promised to pay a portion of the value of the goods subsequent to the supply of goods. On dishonouring of the cheque, it cannot be deemed that when the supply was made they had any dishonest intention.
(3.) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, by an order dated 6th April, 1977, had summoned the petitioners on a finding that an offence under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, had been made out. That order could not be legally passed and for that reason the proceedings pending Against the petitioners before the said Magistrate are quashed.;