Case: Anil Ritolia @ A.K.Ritolia Vs. State Of Bihar

Parties hereto admittedly had been carrying on commercial transactions. Appellant herein was an authorised dealer of Hindustan Lever Limited. In connection with the said business transactions, appellant allegedly was required to deliver to the second respondent Form IX-C prescribed in terms of Bihar Sales Tax Rules. The Second respondent herein filed a complaint petition alleging commission of offence under Section 427, 384 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia,it is not out of place to mention here that the company at the time of agreement so took place between complainant and Hindustan Levar got signed of the complainant over certain plain and printed papers saying that there are the formality of the organization, which is required to be fulfilled as such if the company try to take any advantage from the said papers the same would not be binding upon the complainant, as the complainant was not made aware from the contents of the alleged documents and the signatures of the complainant do not come within the definition of execution.That as per the requirement of the law stipulated by the rule 12 of sub-rule (2) (sic) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 it is the obligatory duty of the selling dealer to furnish a declaration in writing to the purchasing dealer known as form IX-C obtained from prescribed authority for the exemption of the sales tax over the turn over of the purchasingthe conduct of the accused of this case put complainant in great inconvenience, mental agony and financial despair and caused damage to his businessthe accused always kept proposal before the complainant to continue business with the company and as the complainant refused to join with them after 1999 and as such the accused did not supply the said form IX-C to the complainant only with the mala fide and dishonest intention which caused damage to the complainant.A Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, upon examining the complaint on oath and upon taking statements of the witnesses purported to have found existence of a prima facie case for taking cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants herein. Summons were directed to be issued. They filed an application for quashing of the said criminal proceedings before the High Court of Judicature at Patna in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By reason of the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissed the said petitionthe petitioners were the carrying and forwarding agents of the Company and in that capacity they perhaps were instrumental in forwarding the articles to the complainant. They cannot escape from the liability of undergoing criminal proceedings. So far as the Petitioners contention on the dispute being a civil one is concerned, I am unable to agree with the assertions since from the facts made out a definite criminal liability is made out."

Reasoning: It is not a case where the appellants can be said to have induced the respondent to enter into a transaction so as to deceive them with a view to cause unlawful losses to them and to make unlawful gain for themselves.12. For the reasons aforementioned, in our opinion, the High Court has committed an error in not interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence.