T.L.Jain vs Mahesh Chand

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by T.L. Jain, Regional Manager, M/s Bengal Roadways Limited, M.C.D. Building, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi and Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal, Director M/s Bengal Roadways Limited, Tiratto Bazar Street, Calcutta7 whereby they seek the quashment of complaint Annexure P1 under Sections 420, 407 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code instituted by Mahesh Chand. They have also sought the quashment of the order Annexure P2 whereby they have been summoned to stand trial. For appreciating the matter in controversy, it would be useful to advert to the facts set up in complaint Annexure P1.

Mahesh Chand s/o Ragubar Dayal, respondent herein, instituted complaint under Sections 420, 407 and 120B IPC against Jagdish Parshad Jain, Ram Avtar Jainnonpetitioners, T.L. Jain, Mahabir Parshad Aggarwalpetitioners herein and Raj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Bhuvneshwari Metal Rolling Mills, Jagadhri. It is alleged in the complaint that Jagdish Parshad and Ram Avtar Jain are agents of Jagdish Parshad and Mahesh Parshad Aggarwal in respect of the transporters named M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Limited. M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. have branches at different places in India. Shri T.L. Jain is the Regional Manager of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. while Mahesh Parshad Aggarwal is Director of Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. Jagdish Parshad Jain, Ram Avtar Jain, T.L. Jain and Mahabir Parshad Aggarwal are liable for their lapses and omissions. Raj Kumar accused is doing business in Jagadhri under the name and style of M/s Bhuvneshwari Metal Rolling Mills, Jagadhri and is proprietor of M/s Bhuvneshwari Metal Rolling Mills, Jagadhri dealing in metal business. Mahesh Chand complainant and Raj Kumar have known each other since long as they are in the same metal business and have dealings with each other. Complainant Mahesh Chand''s wife Mrs. Urmila Rani is also the proprietor of the firm M/s B.K. Metal Products, Jagadhri, Haryana. As such M/s B.K. Metal Products is a sister concern of the M/s Mahesh Metal Industries, Jagadhri. Shri Raj Kumar accused No. 5 booked goods vide G.Rs. to Hyderabad. It is not necessary to give details of the G.Rs. along with the names of the firms to whom the goods were booked by Raj Kumar from Jagadhri to Hyderabad. Raj Kumar booked goods of the total value of Rs. 2,31,091.66 to Hyderabad firms vide G.Rs. No. 432756 dated 1.11.1986 etc. Goods were booked at Jagadhri through accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are local agents of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd., New Delhi. Shri Mahesh Chand and his wife Urmila Rani purchased the G.Rs. from Raj Kumar accused who knew them, into the belief that the transactions were honest and bona fide although he knew that the transactions were dishonest and mala fide since beginning. Accused No. 5 endorsed the 17 GRs. to the complainant and his wife Urmila Rani after they had financed him qua the amount of G.Rs along with the hundis and bills. Complainant entrusted the G.Rs. to their bankers M/s Central Bank of India, Jagadhri and Punjab & Sind Bank, Jagadhri. Bills belonging to the complainant''s wife were sent to the Central Bank of India, Jagadhri and 3 G.Rs. endorsed in favour of the complainant were entrusted to the Punjab & Sind Bank, Jagadhri for collection. Complainant and his wife became entitled to the amount endorsed in the said G.Rs. accompanied by the invoices and hundis as the complainant and his wife had financed Raj Kumar accused in good faith. They got lien over the goods of their value. All the G.Rs. were returned to the complainant/his wife with the memos of the Bank. None of the G.Rs. were retired by the consignees. Memos indicate that G.Rs. were fictitious and the G.Rs. were fake prepared in collusion and conspiracy of accused 1 to 5. When not a single penny was received by the complainant and not even a single G.R. was honoured/retired the complainant enquired into the matter and contacted the accused persons. Accused persons admitted that the G.Rs. were forged and ensured the complainant that they shall pay back the financed amount of the complainant soon.

Petitioners herein in support of their prayer for quashment of complaint Annexure P1 and the order summoning them Annexure P2, have averred that if accused No. 1 Raj Kumar and the complainant had ceased dealing with each other since long, there was no necessity of appointing agents in accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Jagadhri. It is the own case of the complainant that when the complainant approached the person who got the G.Rs. financed for the return of money which is financed by the complainant to Raj Kumar accused, he admitted that G.Rs. were forged and ensured the complainant that he would pay back the financed amount to the complainant. Nathu Prasad son of Bhola Parsad who is doing the accounts work in Mahesh Metal Industries, Jagadhri appeared in preliminary evidence but nowhere stated anything against the petitioners. His statement is directed towards involving Raj Kumar accused. He stated that amount of these G.Rs. is standing against accused No. 5. From the statement of PW 2 Nathu Parsad, Raj Kumar accused alone can be said to be guilty because he alone endorsed the G.Rs. in favour of the complainant and his wife. Shri V.K. Jain, Advocate who appeared as PW 3 in the complaint and who is the Sales Tax Advisor of Mahesh Metal Industries, Jagadhri did not impute any crimes to the petitioners. All that he has stated was that bills G.Rs. Hundis were issued by Raj Kumar under his signatures. On the back of the G.Rs., Raj Kumar made endorsement in the name of the complainant and on the back of the hundis there are signatures of Raj Kumar. Petitioners were not at all related to the G.Rs. This fact did not attract the notice of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri while passing the order summoning them for trial.

Prayer of the petitioners has been opposed by the respondent Mahesh Chand urging that the G.Rs. were prepared and forged at the instance of Raj Kumar accused with the help of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 with a view to cheat him (respondentcomplainant) and thereby dishonestly inducing him. G.Rs. are valuable security as they are negotiable instruments. Accused 1 and 2 are local agents at Jagadhri appointed by Accused 3 and 4 in respect of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Limited who has different branches all over India. Accused No. 3 is the Regional Manager and Accused No. 4 is the Director of M/s Assam Bengal Roadways Ltd. They, with dishonest intention, forged the G.Rs. and induced the complainant with intention to grab his money.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent Mahesh Chand and gone through the record.

Discretion vesting in this court by virtue of Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is a special discretion meant to be exercised in grave and exceptional situations where if this discretion is not exercised there will be subsantial injustice and the only way of averting substantial injustice is to exercise this discretion and quash criminal prosecution. Magistrate is seized of the matter. He has recorded preliminary evidence and has summoned the accused. Now the complainant will lead his own evidence. Petitioners can any time before the framing of the charge also make application to the Magistrate that no offence is made out against them for which they can be charged and as such they be discharged. It is not that the complainant must adduce the entire evidence and he should close his evidence and the complaint should be ripe for consideration of the charge against the accused. The accused can plead that there is no worthwhile evidence against him/them and as such he/they be discharged. I do not see any reason to quash this complaint at the outset. The complaint can be quashed at the outset if, on the face of it, the complaint appears to be frivolous, false or vexatious, generated by malice or illwill towards the accused. It is not that case where this complaint should be scuttled at the very outset and not be proceeded with and given trial. So, this petition fails and is dismissed.

Whatever has been said above, is not intended to be any reflection on the merits of the case of either party. Merits of the case shall be determined by the trial court at the trial. Magistrate shall be liberal in granting personal exemption from appearance before him during the trial to any accused or all the accused.