IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36677 of 2016 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2014 Thana- WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- West Champaran ====================================================== Pramod Kumar Vohra Son of Late Sh. O.P. Vohra resident of 65 Godawari Apartment Alaknanda, P.S. Chitranjan Park, New Delhi, 110019, Managing Director of Solan Energy Saving Products Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 34A, Electronic Complex, Chambaghat, P.S. Solan, Distt- Salah H.P. 173213. ... ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Shri Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Gupta Traders Prakash Nagar, Naya Tola, Narkatia Ganj, P.S. Sikarpur, West Champaran, Bihar- 845455. ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 06-02-2025 The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.PC against the impugned order dated 06.10.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 349(C) of 2014 whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner and other co-accused of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The factual background of this case is that the Complainant/Ramesh Kumar, who is the Opposite Party No.2 herein, filed one Complaint bearing no. 349(C) of 2014 against the petitioner and co-accused, Kuldeep Tyagi stating that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36677 of 2016 dt.06-02-2025 2/5 Complainant is an educated unemployed person and he runs an establishment in the name and style of Gupta Traders dealing in CFL bulbs. As per allegation, the petitioner and the co-accused, Kuldeep Tyagi, came to the Complainant and represented to him that they are managers of Solan Energy Saving Products Pvt. Ltd, Chambaghat, Solan, Himachal Pradesh and they manufacture CFL bulb with ISI mark and they want to start marketing business in Champaran. They also requested the Complainant to do the business in the Company products. The petitioner also stated to the Complainant that he should send Rs. 2,40,000/- in the account of the company and eight empty cheques before he sends CFL bulbs with ISI mark. Consequently, the Complainant paid Rs. 2,40,000/- and also handed over eight empty cheques. 3. In pursuance of the contract, the accused persons sent CFL bulbs on 07.09.2012 by transport, but the bulbs were found to be defective. Thereafter, the complainant again made a complaint to the accused/petitioner and he got assurance from him that after inquiry about the defect, they would supply fresh CFL bulbs if the complaint is found to be true. Subsequently, the accused persons again sent CFL bulb for Rs. 2,15,181/- but the bulbs were again found to be defective. The defect was again Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36677 of 2016 dt.06-02-2025 3/5 informed to the petitioner, but he did not believe it and refused to replace it. A legal notice was also sent to the petitioner and co-accused/Kuldeep Tyagi, but he refused to pay back Rs. 4,15,889/-. 4. During inquiry, three witnesses were examined and after the inquiry the impugned order was passed, whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the co-accused. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that no offence is made out as per the alleged facts and circumstances. Mens rea is sine qua non for making out any offence. But such essential ingredient of any offence, let alone Section 420 IPC is missing in the alleged facts and circumstances. Following the contract, bulbs were supplied and hence, there is no question of any guilty mind on the part of the petitioner to cheat the complainant. As a matter of fact, he has supplied CFL bulb more than whatever paid by him but despite demand, he has not paid the outstanding amount for supply of CFL bulb and hence, he has filed one civil suit in the Civil Court, at Solan. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36677 of 2016 dt.06-02-2025 4/5 6. He further submits that as per the alleged facts and circumstances, at most, a dispute of civil/commercial nature may be made out, for which the Complainant may move Civil or Consumer Court. 7. Per contra, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 defend the impugned order submitting that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order because the petitioner had defrauded the Complainant by supplying defective goods. Hence, the mens rea is apparent since the beginning and this petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record. 9. I find that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner and the co-accused. Mens rea is sine qua non for constituting offence under Section 420 IPC. In the case on hand, I find that after the contract and the payment made thereunder for CFL bulbs, the accused/petitioner has supplied the CFL bulbs to the Complainant, though the bulbs were found to be defective as per the claim of the petitioner. I also find that when the defects were informed to the accused/petitioner, he again Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36677 of 2016 dt.06-02-2025 5/5 supplied fresh bulbs to the complainant. Even subsequently, fresh bulbs were supplied by the petitioner when defects were again informed to him by the complainant. Hence, I do not find any mens rea on the part of the accused-petitioner to constitute offence under Section 420 IPC. 10. The alleged facts and circumstances at most constitute a dispute of civil/commercial nature. The Complainant is advised to move Civil Court or any other Court if so advised. He has also option to file even a counter claim in the money suit filed by the petitioner in regard to this transaction which is the basis of the present complaint. If the Complainant files any such civil suit, or counter claim before the Civil Court, then learned Civil Court may take into consideration Section 14 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay for agitating the matter in wrong forum. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 349(C) of 2014. Chandan/- (Jitendra Kumar, J.) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.04.2025 Transmission Date 15.04.2025