MURLIDHAR AGARWAL Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
LAWS(JHAR)-2015-2-195
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on February 20,2015

Murlidhar Agarwal Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
(2.) In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhanbad Bank More P.S. Case No. 904 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3568 of 2012, which has been instituted for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition originally instituted as C.P. Case No. 1874 of 2012 is that the complainant is the Director of M/s. Dwarika Coke Pvt. Ltd. and the accused No. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, whereas the accused No. 2 is the Director of accused No. 1. It has been stated therein that the complainant deals with coal and coke including pearl coke and since the accused persons were in need of pearl coke in their Ferro Alloys Factory, they requested the complainant to supply the said coke according to the specifications and thereby got issued purchase orders dated 30.12.2010. It has been alleged that on the instruction of the accused persons, pearl coke was supplied as per specification and quantities demanded and bills were raised accordingly. It has been alleged that the complainant supplied to the accused persons pearl coke through various bills and challans worth Rs. 99,38,445.62/-and payment was made by the accused persons only to the tune of Rs. 42,61,226.62/-and the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs. 56,77,219.62 was not paid and in spite of the request by the complainant, the same was not acceded to. It was also alleged therein that the accused persons had sent Form-C to the complainant for the coke in question sold to them thereby admitting the transactions as well as the amount in question due. It has further been alleged that a legal notice was sent by the complainant on 1.3.2012 but in spite of the same neither the legal notice was replied to nor the amount outstanding was paid to the complainant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.