Chander Bhusan Barowalia JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Since common question of law and fact arise for consideration in both petitions, therefore, they were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.
2. The petitioner in Cr.MMO No. 310 of 2017 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, whereas the petitioner in Cr.MMO No. 164 of 2018 is an employee of M/s. Carzonrent (India) Pvt. Ltd. (for short the "Company") (petitioner in Cr.MMO No. 310 of 2017).
3. Both the petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of FIR against them in Police Station Kangra, H.P. vide FIR No. 209/2017, dated 12.07.2017, under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and have filed the present petitions for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.
4. Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are that the petitioner-company is engaged in car-rental business and was approached by respondent No. 2 M/s. Auto World Marketing in February, 2017 through its proprietor Mr. Dinesh Pathania, whereby he expressed his desire for purchasing used cars on 'as is where is' basis. The entire list of the cars which respondent No. 2 wanted to purchase was supplied to him and eventually a written contract was executed between the parties on 15.02.2017 at Delhi. As per the contractual understanding respondent No. 2 had agreed to purchase 143 vehicles from Company, in batches of three, for a total consideration of Rs. 6,30,00,000/- (Rupees six crores and thirty lacs only) and it was further agreed that the payment shall be made by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner-Company in the following manners:-
5. In addition thereto, it was also agreed that the above payments had to be made by respondent No. 2 a day prior to the delivery of the batch of cars, as contemplated in Clause 8 of the Contract, wherein it was further provided that in the event of respondent No. 2 failed to make payment one day prior to the delivery of the vehicles, then the petitioner-Company would provide 10 (ten) days further grace period for making the payment. However, if the payment was not made even within the grace period, then the petitioner-Company have right to levy interest, at the rate of 12% per annum on the unpaid amount till the said amount is finally paid by respondent No. 2. It was also agreed that in case the payments scheduled to be made is actually made in part, then petitioner-Company shall only hand over the vehicles for which the payments have been received and shall not hand over rest of the vehicles to respondent No. 2.
6. By virtue of Contract, respondent No. 2 had also agreed to purchase 9 (nine) Mercedes Benz cars 'C' Class, for a total consideration of Rs. 77,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Seven Lacs only). The payment in terms of this batch of cars was required to be made by respondent No. 2 latest by 24.02.2017. It was also agreed that payment in respect of this batch of cars, could not be delayed beyond 24.02.2017 and if there was any delay in making payment then the petitioner-Company would within its contractual rights to claim an additional amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lacs only) on account of penalty.
7. As per Clause 9 of the Contract, respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to transfer the vehicle registration in the books of the RTO either in its name or in the name of the end user within 60 (sixty) days from the date of handing over of the third batch of cars by the petitioner-Company. In case of violation of thi........