Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1279 (PAT)

Deepak Srivatava v. State Of Bihar

2000-11-30

M.L.VISA

body2000
Judgment M.L.Visa, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 2.5.1998 passed by Shri J.N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari, in complaint case No. 94/98 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 420 and 406, IPC and issuing summons against the petitioner. Opposite party No. 2, the complainant of complaint case No. 94/98 has not appeared in spite of service of notice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that opposite-party No, 2 filed a complaint-petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, against the petitioner and others under Sections 403, 406, 420, 120-B, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that the petitioner and other co-accused-persons claiming them selves to be the Director, Regional Manager and Accountant etc. of non-Banking company ie. Maya Forestry India Limited were carrying on their business by way of forged and fabricated documents in order to cheat the public at Muzaffarpur and in the month of August, 1996 they opened office of the aforesaid company at Motihari and in order to cheat the public they gave inducement to the public for opening account with their company and they started appointing agents for their Motihai Banch. Believing the petitioner and other co-accused-persons, some persons who were appointed as agents of the company started collecting money from the public and thereafter co-accused Manoj Kumar gave a proposal to opposite-parry No. 2 for opening account with the company and working as an agent and on 29.10.1996 opposite-party No. 2 was appointed as an agent of the company. Through opposite-party No. 2 some persons opened their accounts and thereafter opposite-party No, 2 was appointed as senior agent by letter dated 7.12.1996. After it, the brother of opposite-party No. 2 and opposite-party No. 2 himself opened their own account with the company and deposited money. Thereafter the office of the company at Motihari was found locked and when opposite-party No. 2 made search for co-accused Manoj Kumar Verma who was Regional Manager of Motihari Branch, he could not get clue of him. Opposite-party No. 2 also went to Muzaffarpur where the Head Office of the company was located but there also he found that the office of the company was locked. The complaint- petition of petitioner was numbered as complaint case No. 94/98. Opposite-party No. 2 also went to Muzaffarpur where the Head Office of the company was located but there also he found that the office of the company was locked. The complaint- petition of petitioner was numbered as complaint case No. 94/98. It appears that an inquiry under Section 202, Cr PC on the complaint of opposite-party No. 2 was conducted during which four witnesses on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 were examined and learned Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of the case against the petitioner and other co- accused-persons named in the complaint-petition and ordered for issued of summons. 3. The case of the petitioner is that neither in the complaint- petition nor in the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of opposite-party No. 2 any specific allegation has been made against him. The further case of petitioner is that he was one of the Directors of Maya Forestry India Limited which was a registered company and on 20.4.1996 he was discharged from his duty of Managing Director (Annexure 4) because he could not repay the amount of shares held by him and also he could not fulfil the monthly business target and thereafter on 29.7.1996 the petitioner submitted a letter before the Registrar of Companies, Bihar, through the Managing Director, Maya Forestry India Limited with a request to accept his resignation (Annexure 5) and on 31.12.1996 the Managing Director of Maya Forestry India Limited granted certificate to the petitioner declaring that the petitioner will not be responsible for any kind of liability of Maya Forestry India Limited (Annexure 6). After it. the petitioner wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur, requesting him to delete his name from the bank account of the company (Annexure 7) and he again requested the Registrar of Companies, Bihar for accepting his resignation (Annexure 8). According to the petitioner from the aforesaid documents it is clear that he did not participate in any type of transaction of the company from 23.1.1996 to 20.4.1996, therefore, he is not liable for any act of the company made after his period and admittedly in the complaint-petition the date of offence is stated as from 29.10.1996 to 20.1.1998 when the complaint was filed. 4. 4. So far the objection raised by the petitioner that no specific allegation against him has been made either in the complaint-petition or in the evidence of witnesses examined under Section 202, Cr PC. I find that name of petitioner is clearly mentioned in the column of accused-persons and it is also stated in the complaint-petition that all the accused-persons named in the complaint-petition were running a non-Banking company named as Maya Forestry India Limited in order to cheat the public and they opened a branch office at Motihari. It is true that in the complaint-petition it is stated that co-accused Manoj Kumar made a proposal to opposite-party No. 2 for becoming the agent of the company at Motihari but then at the same time opposite-party No, 2 in the complaint-petition has stated that when he saw that on the inducement given by the accused persons some persons opened their account in he company and he was issued a letter appointing him as Senior Agent he also opened account in the branch of the company. In the evidence of witnesses examined under Sectiorr202, Cr PC fitnesses have said that the officers of the company gave inducement to them for opening account and on this inducement they opened account. It is true that witnesses have not heeh able to give the names of all the officers of the company but then they all have stated that branch of the company was opened at Motihari and they on the inducement given by the accused-persons opened their account and thereafter the company disappeared with their money. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was the Director of the Company. The only defence of the petitioner is that at the relevant time he was not continuing as Director because he had already resigned from the post. Form No. 32 (Ext. 6 series) shows that on 31.12.1996 the Company issued a letter that the petitioner has submitted his resignation on 30.12.1996 which has been accepted. Annexure 8 is said to be the copy of the letter of petitioner addressed to Registrar of Companies, Bihar through Managing Director of the company making request for accepting his resignation. This clearly shows that till 30.12.1996 the petitioner remained the Director of the company. Annexure 8 is said to be the copy of the letter of petitioner addressed to Registrar of Companies, Bihar through Managing Director of the company making request for accepting his resignation. This clearly shows that till 30.12.1996 the petitioner remained the Director of the company. In the complaint-petition the complainant has stated that the branch of the company was opened at Motihari in the month of August, 1996 and since then the accused-persons claiming themselves to be the Director, Regional Manage, Accountant etc. started inducing the general public for opening account and on 29.10.1996 the petitioner was appointed as agent and on 2.11.1996 he was appointed as senior agent. It is true that opposite- party No. 2 in his complaint petition has stated that he and his brother opened account in the bank on 31.12.1996. Admittedly the deposit of money was based on inducement given earlier to opposite-party No. 2 on be- half of the company. So, the plea of petitioner that on 31.12.1996 when the money was deposited by opposite- party No. 2 with the company he was not the Director is without any ground. Moreover in this petition the petitioner has challenged the, order by which cognizance has been taken against him. Admittedly on the basis of document filed on behalf of the petitioner the order cannot be set aside because all these documents are in support of the case of defence of opposite- party No. 2 and the impugned order is not based on such defence. So far other plea of petitioner that nothing specific has been alleged against him in the complaint petition and in the evidence of witness examined under Section 202, Cr PC. I find no merit in the submission because the petitioner has been named in the complaint-petition as associated with the company which is supported by the own case of the petitioner that he was one of the directors of the company. 6. In the result, I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed.