Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh Saini vs State Of Punjab And Another on 31 August, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M-25512 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M-25512 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.8.2012
Jaswant Singh Saini
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.K.S.Boparai, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.51 dated 21.4.2011 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station Lodhuwal, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against the petitioner. The petitioner had merely shown the sample of the paper to the complainant. The material was imported from the company Ciparo.B.V. of Netherlands. The complainant had consumed the material supplied to the mill by the company and had earned money. Criminal Misc. No.M-25512 of 2011 (O&M) 2 The dispute between the parties was purely civil in nature. As per the contract between the parties, the complainant could have resorted to the remedy of arbitration. If any loss had been suffered by the complainant, he could have resorted to remedy as agreed under the contract. The complaint had been filed after a long delay. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Mohinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, 1982 Crl.L.J. 524, wherein, it was held that in a trade sales, the element of entrustment was missing as the property passes to the buyer and merely because he fails to pay the price promised to be paid no criminality can be computed to the buyer.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that challan has already been presented in the case. Out of six witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined during trial.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioner had shown samples of imported waste paper to the complainant. The complainant had placed order on the basis of the samples shown to the officials of the mill. On receipt of material, it was found that the same was not of the same quality as the samples shown by the petitioner. When the petitioner was approached by the mill, he agreed that the material was damaged and asked the mill to consume the material and assured that he would get compensation paid to it on account of damaged material. However, the petitioner had failed to do the needful. Due to this reason the company had Criminal Misc. No.M-25512 of 2011 (O&M) 3 suffered a loss of ` 7,00,000/-
A perusal of FIR (Annexure P-1) does not lead to the inference that prima facie, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. Although there was contract executed between the company and the mill but the petitioner had assured the officials of the mill that he would get the mill compensated and at the asking of the petitioner, material supplied by the company had been utilised by the mill. The mill had suffered loss on account of supply of inferior quality of paper to it. As per the FIR, the complainant had not been supplied the same quality of paper which was shown to it as sample. The effect of delay in lodging of the FIR would be seen by the trial Court. Further, at this stage, out of six witnesses, three witnesses have already been examined during trial. In these circumstances, no interference by this Court, at this stage, is called for. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 31, 2012 anita