S.S. Byas, J.
1. Accused Ram Chandra has filed this revision petition against an order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (1), Jaipur District, Jaipur dated July 20, 1982 by which cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and IPC was taken and he was summoned to face trial there under.
2. Complainant Sunil Khosla, Plant Manager, Indian Fibres Limited Jaipur submitted a complaint in the Court below against the accused for offences punishable under Section 406 and 420, IPC. Briefly stated, the allegations made therein are that in pursuance to agreement made between the parties, the accused sent two wagons of Guar Splits to the complainant in January 1982 and sent the bills and other documents amounting to Rs. 2,90,429.06 p. through bank. The complainant made the payment of the aforesaid amount through bank together with other charges and took the delivery of the two wagons of Guar Splits. when the complainant checked the goods, they did not conform to the quality settled between the parties. The complainant immediately informed the accused. On 22-3-82, the accused went to the complainant at his factory. The accused asked the complainant to send back the goods with a promise to replace them by the goods of the quality agreed to between the parties. The complainant accordingly sent back the goods in three trucks to Jodhpur in March, 1982. The accused however, did not replace the goods nor returned the amount of Rs. 2,9o,429.06 p. to the complainant. The accused, thus committed the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420, IPC. The learned Magistrate, after conducting an inquiry under Section 201, Cr. PC issued process against the accused. Aggrieved against the said order, the accused has filed this revision I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the record
3. Shri J.P. Joshi, appearing for the accused, contended that the dispute between the parties was essentially of civil nature. It was a case of of breach of a contract. The proper remedy for the complainant was, therefore, to get the Civil Court to redresses grievance. In reply, it was argued that the accused,by his systematic actions, committed a fraud and obtained a huge amount of nearly 3,00,000/- rupees from the complainant. There may be other transactions between the parties but it is immaterial in the instant case. I have taken the respective contentions into consideration.
4. As per allegations made in the complaint and the evidence produced by the complainant in the inquiry conducted under Section 202, Cr. PC it appears that the accused received a sum of Rs. 290,429.06 p from the complainant against the supply of goods. The goods which he supplied were not of the agreed quality. As such the goods were sent back to the accused by the complainant. The accused is, thus, retaining both the goods as well as the amount of Rs. 2,90,429.06 p. His actions prima facie amount to two offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. It is yet to be seen whether he can readjust this amount against the other transactions alleged to have taken place between the parties. It may mentioned that other transactions, as per allegations in the complaint, were at the stage of negotiation only and no supply of goods had taken place there under.
5. Any how, the allegations made by the complainant and disclosed in the evidence do not appear unfounded. It is true that the complainant can sue the accused in the civil snit, but this remedy does not absolve the accused from the penal consequences of his action. There is a strong prima facie case against him.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no force in this revision petition of the accused and the same is consequently dismissed.