1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application No.637 of 2007 M/s.Good Luck Timber & Plywood Co. Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr. Respondents Mr.J.S.Kini i/b. Mr.Suresh Dubey for applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. July 31, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Kini, the learned counsel for the applicant who has filed Criminal Complaint No.599/M/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 of IPC before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 20th court at Mazgaon, Mumbai. In the said complaint an application came to be filed under section 245(1) of Cr.P.C. by the accused for discharge and the said application came to be rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 30/11/200. By the said order he directed to frame charge under Section 420 of IPC. The accused, therefore, filed Criminal Revision Application No.35 of 2006 which has been allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Sewree as per his judgment and order 2 dated 10/10/2007 and hence this revision application. . From the complaint it is very clear that during the period from 1/6/1996 to 13/8/1997 the complainant’s firm M/s. U.K.A. Enterprises had sold and delivered to the accused timber and plywood of different sizes and quantity in the total sum of Rs.2,65,000/-. the accused had admitted the receipt of the goods and assured to make payment but he did not pay and thus wrongful loss was caused to the complainant in the sum of Rs.2,65,202/-. The complainant alleged that the accused was guilty of criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation and cheating, whereas the learned Magistrate directed to frame charge only of cheating under Section 420 of IPC. The Addl. Sessions Judge referred to the depositions of the complainant himself before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and observed in para 8 of his judgment as under: "8. In this case, on perusal of the testimony of complainant which is recorded by the trial court on 14/7/2004 at Exh-B, it appears to me that, the complainant himself deposed on page no.1 that, in June, 96 he had sold some goods 3 to the accused. He also deposed that, he also sold the goods upto August 1997. Initially accused made the payments of goods regularly. In support of his contention the complainant also filed an order sheet and the challans marked at Exh-P/3. It also appears that the complainant demanded the payment of Rs.2,65,202/-. Even in cross examination, he admitted the payment of Rs.63,517/-, 50,000/- in the month of August 96 and 54,000/- in the month of September, 96." . The accused had submitted before the Revision Court that there was a running account maintained for the supplies made by the complainant and the payments released by the accused and, therefore, even prima facie, there was no case of cheating. If at all any dues were recoverable from the accused, it was plain and simple civil dispute. To prove the charge of cheating, it is necessary to be established by the complainant that the accused induced the complainant for delivery of the goods and, there was no material even to prima facie establish the case of cheating against the accused. 4 . In the case of Madhavrao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Angre [AIR 1988 SC 709] [AIR 1988 SC 709] [AIR 1988 SC 709] the Supreme Court has held as under: "7. The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage." . Hence I do not find any error apparent on the 5 face of the record in the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference in this revision application by the complainant. The revision application is rejected.