S.S.GREWAL,J - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to the quashment of complainant dated 2.6.1987 (Copy Annexure P-1) filed by the respondents against the petitioners before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad.
(2.) AS per the allegations contained in the complaint M/s. Haryana Beer Agencies, Registered Partnership firm, Faridabad is a registered partnership firm. Ram Kumar Gupta and Har Bhagwan complainant are the partners of the said firm. The complainant is a wholesale dealer in English Wine and Beer. He had sold English Wine and Beer to petitioners No. 1 and 2 on the basis of valid permits issued in their favour on cash credit basis themselves, as well as through petitioner No. 3 father of petitioner No. 1 from time to time. It was further pleaded that on 17.9.1984 Chander Bhan petitioner No. 3 approached the complainant and purchased English Wine and Beer on behalf of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of the value of Rs. 35315.00. Petitioner No. 3 received delivery of English Wine and Beer worth Rs. 35315.00 from the complainant on his assurance that a post-dated cheque given by petitioner No. 3 in favour of the complainant worth Rs. 47049.10 would be honoured and encashed when presented after 31.10.1984. It was further pleaded that all the accused conspired and colluded in order to cause wrongful gain to themselves, and wrongful loss to the complainant. It was further alleged that the aforesaid post-dated cheque was dishonoured after the same was presented by the complainant through Bankers "Bank of Baroa, NIT, Faridabad" on 8.11.1984. Counsel for the parties were heard. It was mainly contended on behalf of the petitioners that Chander Bhan Khattar petitioner No. 3 was not illegally authorised by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to have any business dealings with the complainant party; the post-dated cheque was signed and given by petitioner No. 3 to the complainant and the said cheque was with regard to payment of Rs. 470-49.10, whereas, the purchases made were only to the tune of Rs. 35315/-. On this basis it was vehemently contended that the post-dated cheque related to pre-existing liability and the same cannot be deemed to have been issued against the delivery of goods worth Rs. 35,000/- referred to above. It was also contended that the matter in dispute is purely of civil nature, and two civil suits filed against the petitioners by the complainant firm are already pending and as such the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is true that there is no allegation in the complaint that petitioner No. 3 was duly authorised to make purchases on behalf of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the complainant firm. The fact remains that petitioner No. 3 who was a close relation of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 gave post-dated cheque which was subsequently dishonoured on presentation after the due date to the bank on which it was drawn. The said cheque was dishonoured with the endorsement that there was no such account with the bank. Petitioner No. 3 also received delivery of English Wine and Beer worth Rs. 35315/- from the complainant firm on the assurance that post-dated cheque given by him in favour of the complainant would be honoured even though he (petitioner No. 3) fully knew that his account with the bank had already been closed much before the issuance of the cheque.
(3.) FROM the allegations referred to above, it is quite apparent that petitioner No. 3 deceived the complainant party by dishonestly inducing him to deliver English Wine and Beer worth Rs. 351315/- to him on behalf of the petitioners No. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3 also dishonesty concealed all these material facts which indicate that petitioner No. 3 deliberately and wilfully cheated the complainant party.;