IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CRM No.M-39363 of 2015 (OM)
Date of Decision: May 24, 2017
Maya Bansal and others
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
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
`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/-.
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.
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
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)
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable No
4 of 4
07-06-2017 23:16:49 :::