“20. It is evident from the pre-summoning evidence led and the assertions made in the criminal complaint that the dispute raised by Respondent 2 complainant primarily pertains to settlement of accounts. The allegations are: (i) goods supplied by JIPL were not as per the requirements and demands of Respondent 2 complainant, (ii) goods supplied were different from the order placed, and (iii) goods lying with, and returned by Respondent 2 complainant have not been accounted for. These assertions, even if assumed to be correct, would not fulfil the requirements of Section 405IPC, or for that matter Sections 420 or 471. The material on record does not reflect and indicate that JIPL indeed had the dishonest/culpable intention for the commission of the alleged offences under the IPC. Unless the ingredients of aforesaid Sections of the IPC are fulfilled, the offence under Section 120-BIPC, for criminal conspiracy, would not be made. In fact, a combined reading of the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence does not disclose any element of criminal conspiracy as per Section 120-AIPC. The complaint discloses a civil dispute and grievance relating to the claim made by JIPL. What is challenged by Respondent 2 complainant is the demand of Rs 6,37,252.16p raised by JIPL as the amount payable till the year ending 2016. This assertion made by JIPL is questioned as incorrect. The demand, even if assumed to be wrong, would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 405, or Sections 420 or 471IPC, so as to justify the summoning order. As noted above, JIPL had filed a criminal case under Section 138 of the NI Act as two cheques for Rs 1,93,776 and Rs 4,99,610 issued by them, on presentation, were dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds”.”
