9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intention induced the complainant at Kathua in July 1980 to part with the goods like yarn worth ₹ 6,12,247.19 paise as per contract 10 and 11, of 27-9-1980 (Subsequently drawn formally) whereas the accused persons at the very beginning had no intention to pay for these goods, rather they had intended to cheat the complainant. It is submitted that the accused persons tried to create its confidence by making payments of the goods, but that was with fraudulent and dishonest intention, so that the complainant might fell prey to the trap of cheating planned by the accused. And that is what actually happened that the accused persons got successful in inducing the complainant to part with the goods mentioned in contract 10 and 11, for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the acceptance of the Hundies but the accused persons did not make any payment of the goods as stated above. The complainant requested the accused persons to make payment of the goods as represented by they have refused to do so and have also shown their mind that they have succeeded in cheating the complainant by not paying the price of the goods, and successfully entrapped the complainant. The petitioners who are all Directors of the Vinar Limited, want the proceedings to be quashed on the grounds that no criminal case is made out on the admitted facts of the case as the transaction is based on the breach of contracts which is civil wrong. According to Mr. Singh the order impugned is misuse of the process of the Court : firstly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68, 34 and 120B, I.P.C. launched by the carriers of a consignment against the partners of the consignee firm on the ground that by misrepresentation and deceit the partners of the consignee firm induced the carriers to deliver the consignment to them without retiring the transport receipt from the Bank and without making payment to the Bank as required by the contract was quashed by the High Court on feeling that the consignee had later on in three instalments paid both the freight and the price and as such it was a case of mere delay in discharge of monetary liability which need not necessarily amount to dishonest intention on their part but it was found that the carriers had in fact settled all the dues of the consignors and the consignee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdiction because the Bank was obliged to release the consignments only after the consignee had retired the RR/MRs. But, even if what is stated on behalf of the Bank is true, it is only the Courts at Calcutta who have the jurisdiction and that too at the instance of the Bank on whom the fraud was practised. There was, thus, no justification for the trial Court to issue process in this case for want of jurisdiction. 7. Although the complainant has specifically based its complaint on what transpired between the J. K Bank Ltd. Calcutta and the petitioners for which the trial Court was not justified to issue process but in case it is considered that the complaint has still been cheated because the accused tried to gain its confidence by ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
