9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the domain of the investigation. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 brought to the notice of this Court the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties and that respondent No. 2 had been to Delhi and this petitioner did not meet him and also not made any payment. The correspondence made between them clearly discloses taking of time for presentation of cheques and issuance of cheques and hence it is clear that it is a business transaction, but the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint where specific allegations are made against the petitioner that with dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction he made the assurance and cheated the complainant and the very complaint allegation discloses prima facie committing of the offence of Section 420 of IPC. When such being the factual aspects of the case, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that it is a criminal case registered against the petitioner invoking Section 420 of IPC. In the case on hand, though the cheque was bounced, no case is filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. The allegation is made against the petitioner that with dishonest intention, a transa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter and on the assurance of the accused persons, the complainant continued supplying black pepper and supplied black pepper worth of ₹ 44,52,686/- and the same amount ought to be paid by the accused persons to the complainant. Inspite of repeated request and also visit to Delhi, the petitioner did not respond to it and did not meet the complainant. A specific allegation is made in the complaint that with the dishonest intention even though the materials are received, a false legal notice was issued stating that black pepper which was supplied is of sub standard and the same clearly discloses the dishonest intention of the complainant. The learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint, referred the matter for investigation invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Hence, accused No. 1 is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the transaction is on behalf of the Company and the Company has not been arraigned as an accused. The learned counsel would contend that after supply of the material, payments are made on 29.07.2019 to the tune of ₹ 1,19,000/-, ₹ 2,00,000/- and ₹ 53,619/- and the same has been supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the date of supply till November 2019 and there were no objections. Only when the demand was made for payment, the legal notice was issued making an allegation that the materials supplied was of sub-standard. That itself shows that there was a dishonest intention of the petitioner herein. 7. The learned counsel would also contend that when the petitioner has promised to pay the amount on supply of goods and if the same is not made, that itself goes to show that with dishonest intention the complainant was made to part with the material. Hence, it goes back to the date of the transaction that there was dishonest intention in cheating the complainant. 8. The learned counsel with regard to the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi (supra) would contend that the Court has discussed with regard to non making the accused Company as party to the proceedings and the said judgment is referring Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short). In the case on hand, the offence invoked against the petitioner is Section 420 of IPC and this petitioner is the Director of the Company and cheating was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave supplied sub-standard black pepper and tried to convince this Court that the very supply itself is defective supply. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is not disputing the supply of the black pepper in the month of June and July and legal notice was given in the month of December. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that messages were exchanged between the parties in between the period and also brought to the notice of this Court that no complaint was made with regard to sub-standard supply of black pepper between this period and surprisingly the legal notice was issued in December complaining sub-standard supply of black pepper. 12. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 brought to the notice of this Court the whatsapp messages exchanged between the parties and that respondent No. 2 had been to Delhi and this petitioner did not meet him and also not made any payment. The correspondence made between them clearly discloses taking of time for presentation of cheques and issuance of cheques and hence it is clear that it is a business transaction, but the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint where specific allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
