- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) IN this case filed under Section 428, Cr PC petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including order dated 7.3.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Is Class, Jamshedpur in C/l Case No. 1090/2000 whereby he has issued summons against the petitioners for the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner. A copy of the complaint has been filed and marked as Annexure - 1 to the instant application. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether allegation made in the complaint prima facie constitutes an offence under any of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code much less under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. It would be useful to quote paragraphs 1 to 13 of the complaint petition, which reads as under : "That in the month of February, 1998 accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 came to the office of the complainant and induced him to take he distributorship of accused company for Euroline Division. The accused persons also assured him that there Euroline Products have very good reputation in the market and if the complainant will take the distributorship of the products, he will earn good profits in future. That being induced by the accused persons and on the assurance given by them, the complainant took the distributorship of the Euroline division of the accused company. That the complainant also deposited Rs. 2,00,000/ - as a security deposit in the company at the request of accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 who subsequently visited Jamshedpur in this regard. That an agreement was also executed by and between the complainant and accused company on 27.2.1998 and according to the Clause (7) of the agreement it has been agreed between the parties to the company against the supply of good within a week, then complainant will be entitled for 1% discount on the amount payable by the complainant and if the complainant fails to make payment to the company within 15 days then 30% interest per annum will be charged on the invoice amount against the said payment. That the complainant worked for the accused company for at least 6 months and during this period complainant had done various transaction with the company through accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and ultimately, he was sustaining loss out of business transactions. That the complainant ultimately terminated his business relation with accused company and returned all the stocks at the request of accused No. 6 as per trade return credit not raised by the Company dated 30.11.1998. That the complainant wrote several letters to accused No. 3 and remained accused No. 2 over telephone after returning the stock to pay back the amount of security deposit as well as the balance amount lying with the company as per statement of account submitted by the complainant but the accused persons avoided to pay back the amount on one pretext or other. That after several correspondence only Rs. 2,00,000/ - of security deposit was returned by the company and a statement of account was also sent by the accused persons on 26.6.2000 in which it has been mentioned that Rs. 54,032/ - was transferred in the account of the complainant from M/s pallavi Marketttng (P) Ltd. on 30.9.1999. That the complainant submits that the statement of account dated 26.6.2000 in which it has been shown that Rs. 54,032/ - is transferred in the account of the complaint is absolutely a false statement and the complainant iterates that no such amount was credited to his account. That the complainant sent a lawyers notice dated 15.9.2000 and requested the accused persons to pay back his balance amount of Rs. 1,26.656.00 against the return of good. That it is significant to note that the aforesaid notice was received by accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 refused to take the notice. After received the notice, the complainant received a reply from the lawyer of the accused Company vide letter dated 28.9.2000, in which they denied all the allegation at the outset and reserved their right to reply lateron. That the complainant submits that inspite of sending letter dated 28.9.2000, the accused persons did not sent any reply till today, which shows the mala fide intention to grab the money of the complainant. That the aforesaid conduct so far displayed by the accused persons is simply cheating as well as criminal breach of trust within the meaning of law which is punishable under Section 406/420 IPC."
(3.) FROM bare perusal of the averments made in the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that no case under Section 406/ 420 IPC is made out. In my opinion. it is nothing but mala fide action of the complainant in order to force the petitioners to pay certain amount, which alleged to have been lying due against him.;