Criminal Revision No.359 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.359 of 1996 Date of decision: February 29, 2008 M/s Print Pack … Petitioner Versus M/s Stepan Chemical Ltd. and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Des Raj Mahajan, Advocate with Mr. Vinay Kumar Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present revision petition has been filed by the complainant M/s Print Pack, G.T.Road, Near Railway Crossing Rajpura though its partner Sudhir Kumar Jain against M/s Stepan Chemicals Ltd. through its Managing Director, Hindustan Lever House, 165-166, Back Bay Reclamation Bombay; M/s Stepan Chemicals Ltd. through its factory Manager, A-5, Phase-II-B, Focal Point Rajpura and Mr.Vipin Verma (Authorised signatory), Assistant Factory Account M/s Stepan Chemicals Ltd., A-5, Phase-II-B, Focal Point, Rapura. Criminal complaint No.44 dated 29th July, 1992 was preferred by the complainant-petitioner. It was stated by the complainant that as per the oral contract he used to supply stationery and do printing and binding job for the accused company and complainant Firm has deposited Rs.10000/- as security with the accused company, on 25th August, 1989. It is further stated that during course of business transactions, relations Criminal Revision No.359 of 1996 2 between the parties became strained and therefore, the payment has been withheld by the company. As the accused company refused to return the security amount, complaint was filed thereafter, complainant led his preliminary evidence. The learned trial Court noticed that it has come in the evidence of Sudhir Kumar Jain PW-1 that he has filed suit for rendition of accounts against the accused and the same is pending. The Court further come to the conclusion that dispute between the parties essentially constitutes civil liability and the civil Court is seized of the matter. The Court has come to the conclusion that no criminal offence is made out. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. I find no infirmity in the reasonings given by the trial Court. It is admitted before me that the parties were having on-going business transactions and dispute between them lead to filing of the civil suit. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly discharged the accused company. No interference is called for. Present revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge February 29, 2008. rps