S.S.Grewal, J. - (1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relate to quashment of the complaint dated 6-10-1988 under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code filed by the respondent against the petitioner as well as subsequent proceedings thereunder, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.
(2.) In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is carrying on business of distribution of dissolved acetylene, and oxygen gases as a dealer of Anand Gases and Industries Ltd. The respondent is the secretary of the respondent company, whereas, the petitioner is its dealer at Ghaziabad. The agreement, and indemnity bond executed by the petition for this purpose were renewed from time to time, and, an amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- was deposited by way of security by the petitioner with the respondent company on 10-9-1987 against the value of cylinders which, were supplied by the respondent company to the petitioner, as its dealer. According to the averments in the complaint filed against the present petitioner, 341 Cylinders of the respondent company were in possession of the petitioner on 21-9-1988 as its dealer. The respondent-company stopped the supply of gases to the petitioner after 21-9-1988. The said contract was terminated unilaterally and no intimation was sent to the petitioner in this regard. According to the petitioner 6T0 21-9-1988 itself, the respondent company had collected 20 empty cylinders of dissolved acetylene and 82 oxygen empty cylinders, besides 24 private cylinders had been kept in circulation by the petitioner himself. These cylinders were to be taken by the respondent company. 102 cylinders of the petitioner were received by the respondent company at Ghaziabad There after the respondent company filed complaint Annexure P.1 on 6-10-88 against the present petitioner. The petitioner was summoned as an accused in the said case on 2-1-89. According to the petitioner, the impugned complaint amounts to an abuse of the process of the Courts, because the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence. According to the allegations in the complaint, 341 cylinders had not been supplied by the petitioner to the respondent company, despite repeated requests. The petitioner is said to have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of aforesaid 341 cylinders.
(3.) Counsel for the parties were heard. Preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has deliberately suppressed material facts from this Court. At the time of granting of bail counsel for the petitioner made statement that he would return 341 cylinders within a fortnight. The statement of the petitioners counsel was separately recorded in this regard, and on the said undertaking the petitioners was granted interim bail by the Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 20-1-89 till 2-2-89. Suppressing this fact, the petitioner filed the present petition in this court on 30-1-1989 and obtained stay with regard to the proceedings before the Trial Court on 3 1-1-1989. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to give any satisfactory explanation on this important aspect. The only explanation put forth on his behalf is that the counsel representing the petitioner may not have thought it proper to mention this fact in the petition. This is a lame excuse. It is quite patent that the aforesaid fact ii was deliberately concealed, and thereby the petitioner succeeded in obtaining the stay order in his favour without returning 341 cylinders. In these circumstances it would not be desirable to exercise inherent powers of this court in favour of Tithe petitioner, who has not come to the court with clean hands.;