Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Patrick Schneider And Ors vs State And Anr on 16 September, 2022
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3522/2015
Patrick Schneider And Ors.
----Petitioners
Versus
State And Anr.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P. with
Mrs. Pana Choudhary, S.H.O. P.S.
Basni, Jodhpur.
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 13/09/2022
Pronounced on 16/09/2022
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition preferred under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the application
filed by the petitioners u/s 482 Cr.P.C. may be allowed and :
(i) The FIR No. 319 dated 20-11-15 police station Basani, Jodhpur
and its further investigation may be quashed and set aside.
(ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which may be deemed
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may
kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the
learned counsel for the petitioners are that the complainant-
respondent No.2 filed an F.I.R. bearing No. 319/2015 on
20.11.2015 stating therein that he has a factory, Indus Trade, at
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:13:47 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-3522/2015]
Tanawada and that he deals in manufacturing and export of
handicraft items. And that, 5 to 6 months back the petitioners
(persons of Massive Moebel company) came to his factory and
stated that they are agents of G+K Mobel Vertriebs GMBH, 1M
Maintal 10 D, 96173 Unterhaid, Germany. It was further averred
that the said company places orders in India and subsequently
exports goods to the company Germany, and that upon conducting
a quality check, an order, bearing No.25003769 dated 17.06.2015
and order bearing No.25004244 dated 03.08.2015 were placed by
the G+K Mobel Vertriebs GMBH, company to Indus Trade.
2.1 It was further averred in the F.I.R. that petitioners no. 2 & 3
inspected the entire consignment of goods, for which the aforesaid
orders were placed, at the company of the complainant and
thereafter the goods were accordingly dispatched, and a bill of
lading was prepared but the same was allegedly directly sent the
same to the company in Germany, resulting in a loss of about Rs.
47,00,000/- to the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare
perusal of the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any
cognizable offence and hence, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the petitioners and the complainant have been in business
together since about 6 years, and that in the past, they have
received and placed orders and have never defaulted in making
payments for the same, including the present orders in question.
And that, in fact an advance amount, of $ 30,000/- was made by
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:13:47 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-3522/2015]
the G+K Moebel Vertrievs to the complainant's company; and that
the same was communicated via email to the complainant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that no
offence, as alleged in the impugned FIR, are made out against the
petitioners herein, and therefore the impugned F.I.R. deserves to
be quashed.
6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the
learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Vineet Jain, appearing on behalf of the
private respondents assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi jointly opposed
the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing with Mrs. Pana
Choudhary, S.H.O. Police Station Basni, Jodhpur, present in person
submitted that upon investigation, the offences alleged against the
petitioners no. 2 and 3 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and
120B I.P.C. are found to be made out, which is reflected in the
factual report submitted before this Court for perusal. The said
factual report is taken on the record.
8. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that upon a perusal of the
contents of the F.I.R. and looking into the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioners do not deserve any
indulgence by this Court.
9. Heard learned counsel for both parties, and perused the
record of the case.
10. While keeping into consideration the ratio decidendi laid
down in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch.
Bhajanlal and Ors. (1992) Supp(1) SCC 335 and owing to the
(Downloaded on 16/09/2022 at 09:13:47 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-3522/2015]
fact that upon the completion of investigation, the offences for the
Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 120B I.P.C. are found to be made
out against the petitioners no. 2 and 3, after a perusal of the
factual report produced before this Court, and looking into the
overall facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court
does not find a case to be made out, so as to warrant any
interference.
11. Resultantly, the present petition fails and the same is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
Skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
