1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2609 OF 2010 Sambhaji Pandurang Kapare Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr.S.R.Ganbavale for petitioner. Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr.B.A.Lawate for respondent no.2. CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th August 2011 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. There was an agreement signed by the accused-petitioner as Chairman of M/s.Kapare Milk and Milk Products and one Somnath as Chairman of Balaji Milk and Milk Products Ltd. (`the company'). The agreement inter alia provided supply of milk tanker with milk on alternate day by the present petitioner to the said M/s.Balaji Milk and Milk Products Ltd. The complainant claiming to be an employee of M/s.Balaji Milk and Milk Products Ltd. lodged prosecution vide CR No.176 of 2008 at Kurduwadi Police Station on 13th November 2008 for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 506 of IPC as against the petitioner. The principal contention in the FIR is, in spite of there being an agreement entered into by the petitioner with the said M/s.Balaji Milk and Milk Products Ltd., there was non compliance of the said agreement and Rs.13.00 lakhs are due from the petitioner. During the course of investigation the investigator has recorded 2 statement of the complainant Chandarani at page no.23, Pramod Nalawade at page 27, Nitin Atkar at page 30, Satish Raut at page 33, Bharat Ghadge at page 36. 2. Having gone through all the statements, the sum and substance thereof is that Rs.13.00 lakhs was owed by the petitioner for supply of the milk and milk products to M/s.Balaji Milk and Milk Products Ltd. controlled by the complainant and consequently the complaint came to be lodged. The offence under section 420 requires compliance of section 415 of the IPC which reads as under:- "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 3. Reading the definition and considering the transaction between the parties, it is more than clear that though there was lethargy on the part of the petitioner in supplying the milk tanker or the products, in tune with the agreement, however, that will not attract the provisions of section 420 or show any intention to cheat the complainant or the company which she is allegedly controlling. The extract of accounts illustrate that huge transactions have been taken place between the petitioner and the company. The controversy, more or less, involves a civil dispute in respect of outstanding dues payable by the petitioner to the company to the tune of about Rs.13.00 lakhs. For recovering this amount the prosecution is set in motion. 3 4. Taking these aspects of the matter into consideration and in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of M/s.Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate (AIR-1998-SC-128), this is a fit case where interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required. Accordingly, the prosecution against the petitioner herein is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)