TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case titled Rosmarine Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v. Clutch Auto Ltd. & Ors., dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C., came to be affirmed. Brief Facts: 2. The petitioner, M/s Rosmarine Shipping Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner'), is a private limited company engaged in the business of freight forwarding and shipping services. The present petition has been instituted through its Director, Shri Rajesh Bhatia, who is stated to have been duly authorised by a Board Resolution dated 02.06.2010. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that during February-March, 2005, respondent No. 1, M/s Clutch Auto Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clared FOB value. 6. According to the petitioner, during the customs proceedings, respondent No. 2 addressed a communication dated 28.09.2005 to the Commissioner of Customs enclosing another communication purportedly issued by an official of Daikin USA, stating that the consideration for the machinery was USD 1,50,000, which included dismantling charges and other costs incurred up to handing over the machinery to the shipping company. 7. The petitioner further alleges that while pursuing recovery of its service charges, it came across a subsequent communication dated 09.12.2005, on the basis of which it formed the view that the communication dated 28.09.2005, purportedly issued on behalf of Daikin USA, was not genuine. According to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... thereby, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 56/2014, which also came to be dismissed by the learned ASJ vide judgment dated 25.07.2014. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. Submissions on behalf of the petitioner 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned MM and the learned ASJ failed to appreciate that the material placed on record, including the pre-summoning evidence of the handwriting expert, the respondents' banker and the customs official, prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences by the respondents. He further places reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 241, Nirmalji....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the matter was at the stage of issuance of process and the material placed on record was sufficient to make out a prima facie case for summoning the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside. Submissions on behalf of the respondents 17. When the matter was reserved for judgment, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The present judgment is, therefore, being rendered on the basis of the written submissions and the material available on record. 18. Respondents in his reply submits that the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was rightly dismissed, which order was rightly affirmed in revision. 19. It is submitted that the alleged transaction pertains to the year 2005, whereas ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., legality or propriety of the impugned order and to ascertain whether any patent illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity has crept into the proceedings. It is not expected to substitute its own view merely because another view may also be possible. 25. It is equally well settled that at the stage of considering a complaint under Sections 200 and 203 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is not required to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. The Court is only required to ascertain whether the material placed before it discloses sufficient grounds for proceeding against the proposed accused. The Magistrate is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence. Conversely, where the material placed on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion. It is also not in dispute that the alleged transaction pertains to the year 2005, whereas the complaint came to be instituted only in the year 2010. The record does not disclose any satisfactory explanation for the delay in initiating the criminal proceedings. 28. The principal submissions of the petitioner pertain to the genuineness of the communication dated 28.09.2005, the alleged forgery of signatures, the valuation of the shipment and the petitioner's entitlement to additional commission. These were the very issues examined by the learned MM while considering the pre-summoning evidence. Upon appreciation of the material placed on record, the learned MM concluded that no prima facie case was made out and that the dispute wa....