Maya Bansal & Ors vs Niti Kansal on 24 May, 2017

122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-39363 of 2015 (OM)
Date of Decision: May 24, 2017

Maya Bansal and others
…Petitioners

VERSUS

Niti Kansal
…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present: Mr.Madan Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.

Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.

****

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. against respondent Niti Kansal for quashing the criminal complaint

No.110/02.12.2011 titled as ‘Niti Kansal vs. Maya Bansal and others’ filed

under Sections 420, 422, 467, 468 and 406 read with Section 120-B IPC,

registered at Police Station Ambala City, summoning order dated

16.10.2015 along with all other proceedings initiated on the basis of the

complaint.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for respondent

appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone

through the record.

1 of 4
07-06-2017 23:16:48 :::
CRM No.M-39363 of 2015 -2-

From the record, I find that the complaint was filed by Niti

Kansal against Maya Bansal, Rajesh Bansal, Anuj Bansal and Anish Bansal

under Sections 420, 422, 467, 468 and 406 read with Section 120-B IPC. As

per averments in the complaint, complainant has unit to manufacture

utensils of plastic and she wants to start new business to manufacture non

woven bag. Accused persons used to supply China made machines for

manufacture of non woven bag, so they approached the complainant and

promised to supply the machine for `11,90,000/- within 1½ months after

receiving `10 lakhs from the complainant. As per the allegations, amount of

READ  Ram Lakhan & Another. vs State Of U.P. on 4 April, 2017

`10,80,000/- was paid through cheques and RTGS. After the payment of

`10,80,000/- to the accused persons, the complainant requested them to

hand over the XY-600 Non Woven Bag machine but they put up the matter

of delivering said machine. The complainant as well as her family members

smelled out that the accused persons with the criminal conspiracy cheated

the complainant to the tune of `10,80,000/- and have made wrongful gain.

It is further stated that accused persons have also committed offence under

Section 406 IPC.

During the pendency of this petition, on 17.04.2017, learned

counsel for the petitioners stated that respondent has not paid remaining

amount and even if she makes the payment of remaining amount, the

petitioners are ready to supply the machines as per document Annexure P-4

and counsel for the respondent prayed for time to seek instructions in this

regard. On the next date i.e. 24.04.2017, learned counsel for the respondent

stated that respondent wants her money back and she is not interested to

purchase the machine.

After going through the averments of the complaint, I find that
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 07-06-2017 23:16:49 :::
CRM No.M-39363 of 2015 -3-

the dispute between the parties is of civil nature i.e. arising from the

business transaction. The parties are firstly on dispute regarding the price of

the machine. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as per Annexure

P-4, the machine was to be sold and the terms and conditions have been

mentioned in that annexure. The price of the machine is `13,21,000/-.

READ  Smt. Memoona & Others vs State Of U.P. on 9 May, 2017

Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that petitioner Maya Bansal

is the Proprietor and the business is looked after by Anuj Bansal petitioner

No.3 but the entire family has been made accused in the present case. In

fact, Rajesh Bansal and Anish Bansal have no concern with the business of

M/s Subham International. Learned counsel for the petitioners next argued

that the complainant neither provided IEC Code nor applied for sales tax

number and petitioners made many requests through E-mails and requested

to provide IEC code as required and also requested to pay the balance

amount. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the complainant

purchased non woven material through different bills on credit and had not

brought this fact to the notice of the trial Court.

From the perusal of the petition as well as the complaint, I find

that the dispute between the parties is relating to business transaction and is

of civil nature. In no way, it can be held that any offence is made out from

the complaint. It has been brought to the notice of this Court, at the time of

arguments, that till now, no civil suit has been filed for specific performance

of the agreement or for recovery of amount etc. The reply by learned

counsel for the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings for

supplying of machine on the payment of remaining amount, also shows that

the complainant is not interested in the machine and only wants the refund

of money, which also shows that the dispute is of civil nature.

READ  R.S.Shrinivasan-vs-State Rep. By on 1 June, 2011

3 of 4
07-06-2017 23:16:49 :::
CRM No.M-39363 of 2015 -4-

In view of the above discussion, I find that filing of criminal

complaint in the present case is nothing but abuse of process of law and

amounts to miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is

allowed.

Criminal complaint No.110/02.12.2011 titled as ‘Niti Kansal vs.

Maya Bansal and others’ and summoning order dated 16.10.2015 passed by

learned JMIC, Ambala, along with all the subsequent proceedings arising

therefrom, are hereby quashed.

May 24, 2017 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No

4 of 4
07-06-2017 23:16:49 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *