VIKAS SETHI Vs. RAJEEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dtd. 23/2/2010, by virtue of which cognizance under Sec. 420 of Ranbir Penal Code has been taken by the trial Court against the petitioner.

(2.) In the petition, it has been stated that in the complaint the allegation against the petitioner herein is that he approached the respondent for the fitting of aluminium composite sheets, fittings of glass and supply of glass. It was also submitted in the complaint that the accused person made an assurance to the complainant that in case any defect with respect to the fitting and supply of glasses arise, the petitioner who is accused in the complaint shall repay the whole of the amount. It is also submitted in the complaint that after being allured and assured by the accused i.e. the petitioner herein, the complainant purchased the material from him. It is mentioned in the complaint that after finishing of the work, the said work started showing problems. It is also mentioned that request was made to replace the front glass door and the machine as it was not fixed properly, whenever the .door is opened or closed a strange noise used to come from the glass door. A request apprehending the fall of the door was made to the accused but no response was given to the complainant. The accused by deceitful means induced the complainant ie. the respondent to purchase the defective glass and engage him for fitting it in January, 2009. It is again mentioned that the petitioner has deliberately declined to rectify and change the defective glass.

(3.) It is stated in the petition that from the bare perusal of the complaint, as well as statement, the offence under Sec. 420 RPC is not made out. However, the allegations are false, baseless and concocted. Further stated that on 20/12/2007 the respondent herein issued an order to the petitioner herein to purchase glasses for their dealership and thereafter the petitioner finished the work accordingly. It is also to be mentioned here that the respondent has given the certificate of satisfaction on 19/2/2009. That the work done by the petitioner was satisfactory in terms of quality and time schedule. That as the pending amount has not been paid to the petitioner, so he served notices to the respondent. It is stated that instead of paying the amount to the petitioner, the respondent has filed the criminal complaint. The complaint and the statement do not disclose any offence.