Ramesh Kumar and ors. vs Parmod Kumar

A.P. Chowdhri, J.—This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint Annexure P1 dated March 13, 1988, under sections 420/306/467/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amloh.

The relevant facts. briefly stated, are that Parmod Kumar, partner of Messrs Baikunth Nath Goyal and Sons, Gobindgarh, filed the aforesaid complaint against the petitioners alleging that the accused were partners of a firm M/s. Jagat Ram Tilak Raj, Jawala Ji, district Kangra, in the State of Himachal Pradesh. On April 11, 1981, they came to the complainant''s shop and purchased rounds worth Rs. (62,79)and promised to pay the price within 10 days. The accused, however, failed to make the said payment within the stipulated period. On May 16, 1987, two bank drafts of Rs. 20,000/each where received by the complainant firm. They could not be got cashed as they were not correctly prepared. The complainant pursued the matter by a personal visit and he was assured that the payment would he made within 213 days. The accused further told the complainant that not only that the payment would be made, but the accused would come and place a further order for more material. On May 19, 1987, Ramesh Kumar and Sham Kumar accused came to the shop of the complainant with track No. PPG3287 and represented that Tilak Raj the third partner, was following them along with the bank draft and the outstanding payment would be cleared and they further purchased material worth Rs. 80, 76.60 and had it loaded in the truck. The complainant took the accused on their word and he went away from the shop for a short while and in his absence the accused persons went away with the truck and the material loaded in it, without making any payment. Ultimately, after notice, the complainant filed both a civil suit as well as the aforesaid complaint. The accused seek quashing of the complaint.

The main contention of Shri R.S. Cheema, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and starting of criminal proceedings is an abuse of the process of Court.

The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, is that the filing of the civil suit was no indication that this was a dispute of a civil nature A sizeable amount of money was involved and it is manifest that even if the accused are convicted and sentenced, the complainant cannot be expected to give up his claim for the recovery of the money. He invited particular attention to the allegations made in para 7 of the complaint that on the second occasion the material worth over Rs. 80,000/ was obtained from the complainant on the representation that the third partner was on his way with the bank draft and availing themselves of absence of the complainant for a short while, the accused had run away with the material.

I have given my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel.

I am of the view that the facts, especially the averments made in para 7 of the complaint clearly constitute the commission of a criminal offence. The nature of the offence will not be changed only because the complainant wrote letters, Annexures P3 and P4, asking for the payment of the money. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant could not be expected to rest content with filing a criminal complaint because in addition to the punishment which he seeks against the petitioners, he has to take steps in time to recover the amount which is not inconsiderable.

There is no case for quashing the complaint. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on March 20, 1991, for further proceedings according to law

Revision dismissed.