9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plainant firm runs business of production and trading of ispat products through its partner Mr. Om Prakash Agrawal, who manages the entire business of the firm. The petitioners firm are also involved in the business of trading, in which Mr. Neeraj Agrawal is the director and proprietor of the petitioner No.1 G. K. Sons and petitioner No.2 M/s Hariom Trading Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner No.1 G. K. Sons borrowed 21.380 metric tonne M. S. Angle worth Rs. 7,93,717/- from the respondent firm on 09.12.2019 and it was assured that the payment would be made on the very next day, but the petitioner firm has not paid the said amount to the respondent firm and only empty assurances were given that the entire payment would be made after some times. Lastly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that the impugned order passed by the learned JMFC, Raipur is contrary to the facts and provisions of law as well. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present crime in question by filing a false case against him by the respondent. Infact the petitioner had given a blank cheque to the respondent as security at the time of purchasing the articles, which has been misused by the respondent and the petitioner has already paid the entire amount during the period May, 2017 to February, 2018 and proof in this respect has been produced by the petitioners by filing leisure account statement, but the said fact has not been considered by the learned JMFC and the application of the petitioners has been rejected, therefore, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Section 251 of CrPC, which was denied by him and thereafter the case was fixed for complainant's evidence. Meanwhile, on 26.10.2021, the petitioners filed an application seeking discharge in criminal case on the ground that since the entire disputed amount has already been paid to the respondent during the period May 2017 to 2018, therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 of IPC is not maintainable and accordingly criminal case be closed. The petitioners have also filed copy of statement of leisure account from which payment is said to have been made to the respondent firm. On 26.10.2021 itself, the application of the petitioners has been considered and rejected by the learned JMFC observing that the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yment subsequent thereto etc. at best can be a defence for the respondent No.2 to be put forth and to be established in the trial. In any event, it was not a case for the Court to either refuse to take cognizance or to discharge the respondent No.2 in the manner it has been done by the High Court. Therefore, though a criminal complaint under Section 420 IPC was not sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the complaint under section 138 of the N.I Act was maintainable and all contentions and the defence were to be considered during the course of the trial." 8. Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sripati Singh (supra) in the present case as well, it is quite vivid that the present comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
