# Ajay Mehra & another v. Durgesh Babu. & others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39151
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-02-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-mehra-another-v-durgesh-babu-others-39151
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( % . 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( % . 5$7+, -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

$MD\ 0HKUD DQRWKHU
«$SSOLFDQWV
9HUVXV
'XUJHVK %DEX RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6KUL 9LQHHW 6DUDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$
6KUL <66D[HQD
6KUL 9HHU 6LQJK

&RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH 6
FRPSODLQW
3URFHHGLQJV
4XDVKLQJ
RI
±
3HUPLVVLELOLW\
+HOG 3DUD
,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH DOVR WKHUH LV IDFWXDO LVVXH
DV WR ZKHWKHU GUDIWV ZHUH JLYHQ E\ WKH
FRPSODLQDQW RU E\ 6DWLVK &KDQGUD $JDUZDO
DQG WKH DOOHJDWLRQ RI WKH FRPSODLQDQW WKDW KH
JDYH WKH GUDIWV FDQ QRW EH UHMHFWHG ZLWKRXW
RSSRUWXQLW\ WR KLP WR SURGXFH HYLGHQFH
7KHUHIRUH
WKH
SURFHHGLQJV
FDQ
QRW
EH
TXDVKHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ &U 3&
&DVH UHIHUUHG
 6&&

By the Court

1. This is petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of complaint
case no. 1920 of 1999. Durgesh Versus Ajay
Mehra and another under Section 406 I.P.C.,
police station Bilsi, Badaun pending in the
court of A.C.J.M., Badaun.

2. I have heard Sri Vineet Saran, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Sri Y.S.
Saxena, Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 1.

3. The brief facts of the complaint are that
the petitioners are the employees of I.B.P.
Company Limited Petitioner no. 1 is the
Senior Manager, Agra Division and petitioner
no.2 is Assistant Manger (Sales). Aligarh. It is
alleged in the complaint by the respondent
no.1 that the petitioners assured him to
appoint a dealer of mobile oil of I.B.P.
Company. That the petitioners approached the
complement and asked him to be ready with a
bank draft of Rs. 5 lacs. That accordingly on
17.02.1995 in the afternoon the respondent
no.1 handed over two bank drafts of Punjab
National Bank, Bilsi each for Rs. 2.50 lacs
bearing nos. 1-95-802830 and 5-95-802831
dated 15.02.1995. That in-spite of the said
drafts the respondent no. 1 was not appointed
as dealer. That therefore, the respondent no.1
on 16.02.1998 gave a registered notice to
I.B.P. Company. In spite of the same the
respondent no.1 was neither appointed a
dealer
nor
his
amount
was
returned.
Thereafter the respondent no.1 filed a
complaint against the petitioners for offences
under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. The learned
Magistrate after recording the evidenced
under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has
summoned the petitioners.

4. The contention of the petitioners are
manifold. It is contended that the bank drafts
mentioned in the complaint were given in the
name of I.B.P. Company by Satish Chandra
Agarwal, who was the dealer of I.B.P.
Company for purchase of mobile oil and other
articles which were supplied to him. That no
draft was given by the complainant. That it is
not alleged that the drafts were given in the
name of petitioners and therefore, there is no
question of misappropriation of amount by the
petitioners. That the petitioners moved an
application for discharge before the learned
Magistrate, which has been registered.

5. It is further alleged that the allegation
of the complainant that drafts were given on
17.02.1995n in the afternoon is false, as the
2ALL] Ajay Mehra & another V Durgesh Babu. & others 61
supplies against the said drafts were made
in the morning on 17.02.1995 itself. That
there is no question of the submitting drafts
without any application for dealership and
without following the procedure for grant of
dealership. That the dealership is granted by
the Ministry of Petroleum and the complaint
is highly belated.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has
file the notice 4 reply of the notice given by
I.B.P. Company to Satish Chandra Agarwal,
which is annexure no RA-1 and the reply of
Satish Chandra Agarwal is annexure no Ra-2.
In this reply Satish Chandra Agarwal has
mentioned that the drafts in dispute were
given by him for supply of diesel and mobile
oil which have been supplied to him. The
petitioners have also filed the account books.
And other registers maintained by I.B.P.
Company to show that the drafts in dispute
were given by Satish Chandra Agarwal and
has been credits his account. On the basis of
this evidence it is contended that the
allegations of the complainant that drafts were
given by him is false. It is also contended that
the petitioners has nothing to do with the
grant of dealership. Which is granted by a
Committee. That no form was filled for grant
of dealership nor any application was given.
That the complaint was also lodged after long
delay. It is therefore shows that the allegations
are totally false and can not be believed.

7. I have considered the arguments and is
of the view that at present there is no ground
to quash the complaint. No reason has been
alleged as to why false complaint has been
filed by respondent no. 1 against the
petitioners. It has not been mentioned as to
how the complainant came to know the
numbers and amounts of the drafts and the
name of the bank from which they were
purchased. It they were not purchased by the
complainant. The complainant allege that he
purchased the drafts and it is a question of fact
as to whether these drafts were purchased by
the complainant or by Satish Chandra
Agarwal. Reply of the notice given by Satish
Cahndra Agarwal has been filed but no
affidavit of Satish Chandra Agarwal has been
filed. The question of fact can be decided after
the evidence and can not be decided in these
proceedings.

8. In this connection I may also refer the
case of Janta Dal Versus H.A,S Chaudhary.
1992 (4) SCC 305. It was observed that
inherent power conferred by Section 482 of
the Code should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution . The High Court being
the highest court of a State should normally
refrain from giving a premature decision in a
case wherein the entire facts are extremely
incomplete and hazy, more so when the
evidence has not been collected and produced
before the court and the issues involved
whether factual or legal are of great
magnitude and cannot be seen in their
perspective without sufficient material."

9. In the present case also there is factual
issue as to whether drafts were given by the
complainant or by Satish Chandra Agarwal
and the allegation of the complainant that he
gave the drafts can not be rejected will out
oppertisnit
to
him
produce
evidence
.
Therefore, the proceedings can not be quashed
under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

10. The next Contention of the petitioner
is that even if the case of the complainant is
accepted correct, he drafts were given to
I.B.P. Company and therefore there is not
question of misappropriation of amount by the
petitioners and no offence under Section 406
I.P.C has been made out . This contention can
also not be accepted. If the amount was given
by the complainant it could not be accepted
by I.B.P. Company. If the amount was given
by the complainant the I.B.P. Company has
also denied the taking of the amount from the
complainant. Therefore, according to the
complainant the petitioners have manipulated
things and has used the amount of the drafts
given by the respondent no. 1 to them for their
62 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
own use. Therefore at this stage it can not be
accepted that no offence under Section 406
I.P.C. is made out.

11. Before parting it may also be
mentioned that the complaint was filed under
Section 420 I.P.C. which was dropped by the
Magistrate on the objection of the petitioners.
The contention of the respondent no. 1 is that
he was cheated by the petitioners and on the
pretext of giving the dealership of mobile oil
of I.B.P .Company. Therefore, without being
influenced with the observation made above
the trial court will consider the question
whether the charge u/s 420 I.P.C. should also
be framed against the petitioners.

12. Considering the circumstances the
proceedings of complaint case can not be
quashed and the correctness of the allegations
can be decided only after the evidence is
recorded.

13. The petition is therefore dismissed.

----------