- (1.) The Petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashment of the order dated 03.07.2010 by which the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella found a prima facie case against them under Sections 420/406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code after enquiry in P.C. Case No. 36 of 2010 and accordingly directed for summons to be issued to the Petitioners-accused.
(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-O.P. No. 2 filed Complaint Case No. 36 of 2010 alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner No. 1 M/s AML Steel & Power Ltd. had placed purchase order dated 21.08.2009 to the complainant for supply of dolomite for the cost of Rs. 858000/-which was to be supplied by 15.11.2009. Pursuant to such order, the complainant O.P. No. 2 had supplied dolomite as per terms to the accused company between 22.08.2009 and 15.11.2009 against the challans invoice and transporter bill and the consignments were delivered at its destination on different dates to which the accused-Company issued a computer print of the company ledger account to the complainant showing the balance amount payable to the complainant by the Company and its officials. The complainant further stated that though the accused company received the consignment of dolomite supplied by the complainant but the accused company and its official's viz. the petiioner did not care to pay against the bills in accordance with the terms of payment shown in the purchase order. The complainant on bonafide belief and in good faith supplied the materials to the accused company according to the purcahse order dated 21.08.2009 total worth Rs. 800325.35/-but in spite of repeated requests the officials of the accused company did not care to make payment to the complainant towards supply of dolominte.
(3.) The complainant further alleged that he realized that the accused company and its officials had malafide intention to cheat the complainant with the very inception and to deprive him from valuable security and put him to wrongful loss presuming that the complainant was a young business man and shall not be acquainted with the business policy. He lastly sent notice to the Petitioner No. 2 on the address of the Head Office and site office also through his lawyer which was received on 22.02.2010 and 24.02.2010 respectively but in spite of acknowledgement, the accused company and the other Petitioners did neither give any reply to the notice nor try to make a contact with the complainant for the settlement of dues. The complainant informed the local police at Seraikella but when no action could be taken against the accused for long, he filed the complaint by furnishing all the papers and in that manner he explained the delay. The Petitioners hatched up and pursuant to criminal conspiracy cheated the complainant by causing criminal breach of trust.;