mm,m,m é$/¥ m V1 200 Wm (W) WWW ' mmiffgém ' %wmww SE' iiGW§iE gi‘i—Ri E§IRE§i§RA MigHRA J. PETETIQKE-R Dr, p, N$~wmh 3/9 Q1”; M wv‘afma L.“ m. H rim} agec‘i about 6'2 vears, Rio 73‘3 V111ay/\ SHAheg‘m Nagar, MYSQRE‘~ t: (3f Chha‘L‘Lisgax‘h, through Siaiion Murumuhnh “m"...“u.m ‘ $ GfIEC€13 RS. Gudiyan, Lnstt. 55.2-20$7- S1311 G$ AgAmxx‘QT} Q1“ xvifh ,Qhri Q11r1PPP Vgma, (“nunmai for the appncant. Shri GK Beriwal, DV. acate G‘Enerai, for the State. ' v BY this petiticn under S crion 4312 of Cr.P.C., thé‘. peiitioner has pravai for quashing of proco dings i31 Criminai Caso No. 9m); 20§Jo pending in the. Court of Addi i011a1 Chisf Judiciai Magis‘u‘ats, Kalpur on the groumi that oven if tho Whole aiiegation preoent 1'11 the. FER. of b‘x. P—l is takan to ho truo in its ontiraty, no mgrectient oi oHenco as dofmod 1111{1€r Section 4’20 of .PC. is marm out. Learnod counsel for th ,appiicani argued that from perusai OI the complaint itseif, it woo be evident that the complainant 3.1m Submmaneohwara Gil lnclus‘ , Banglore entered into a contract and appointecl the complainant a assignee agent for their product ‘Keal Drop Oil; anti thereafter an unt of Rs. 5 lacs was received by them through éemancl drait I ‘ ‘ ‘ ed l3—‘2-2G04 and in lieu of the. name, 12' orderecl goods was delivered to the complainant. Subsequently also on 1-8—2'004, goods was delivered to the complainant on 18-3—120 . The allegation is that a o t 1~ on payment of Rs. 3,51,721 / 0 ‘ 4....— mam emu 3mm, mama F5/59— 3/2007 40,000. total amount at i H 115 (1v l t A. V m. mmm ya mm.» 3‘ a. 6V) 4’ ND 5G8/°7’ m m . . In 200 WW (33W) WWW . WWiwm awifcmm of Rs. 55,58,800} — was rqmived by {113 appiiczmt from the compiairlant howeVEr no goads was suppiiafi agaj11$t rim abov€ paymant Thm; the.» r ‘ aiiagation present in thé compiaint is pursiy of civil nature anti the,’ same (ioes not constitutd chsatiug. T116 compiajnant has ah‘eady Iliad a Civii suit of Annexum P—3 for recovexy of {116 amount and in these circumstancua, con’tjnu 1C6 of criminai prosacution in cm‘minai casa j . \ No. 950i'2005 is an ab se of process 0f Com‘t and the same. should be quashed. From perusai of ' e aiiegations present in the compiajnt, it is I seen that the app‘iicant replesem'ing himseif to be manufacturerpf the product ‘Reai Drop ff, appointeét the compiainant as consignegg ‘, ,x agent and ohtajneci ae‘iv ce in hen of supply of ‘Reai Drop Gilli After gr v ,, ‘ h1hiih11g their promise n fn‘st two occasions, on the thn‘d occasmn ‘K j I thev failed to suppiy‘ 0061s to the eompiainant and when the 44 compiainant went to B ' gioi‘e anti verified about the activities of th industw, he learnt that the said industry is not engaged in manufacturing of oii an thereafter he fiied the compiaint. Having consit‘ierei the allegations present in the written complaint of EX P—l o1 the basis of which the offence has been iegistered bv the polio , there is prima facie evidence of Cheating j 6 availahle against the pe itioner and the prosecution of the applicantww in the aforesaid crhnh al case cannot he quashed in exemise of ‘ j e ’ i