Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 126 (PAT)

Vipin Luthra v. State of Bihar

2006-02-01

body2006
ORDER This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 19.4.2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.178-C of 2002 by which the petitioner has been summoned alongwith other co-accused to face trial under sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and also for quashing the subsequent proceeding of the case. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The prosecution case in the complaint petition, in the nutshell, is that accused nos. 2, 3 (petitioner), 4, 5 and 6 are all Directors of the Company M/s. Televista India (P) Limited and accused No. 1 M/s. Televista India (P) Limited is manufacturer of various electronic products including Colour and Black and White Television. The accused persons approached the complainant at the residence of accused No.7 for being appointed as C & F Agent for the whole country on attractive terms and conditions. Being Induced by them, he deposited Rs. 14,00,000/- out of Rs. 15,00,000/- as security deposit. A memorandum of agreement was also signed. According to the terms of the agreement, the complainant had to receive 2% interest per month on the amount of security deposit together with a sum of Rs. 60,000/- irrespective of the salary. The accused persons were required to pay the god own charges. It is further alleged that in the month of June, 1998, the accused persons were liable to make payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- out of which only Rs. 1,00,000/- was adjusted forwarding the balance amount of security deposit. Thereafter, neither the godown was handed over nor any goods was sent nor the accused persons acknowledged the dues of the complainant. After great pursuation a Bank draft of Rs. 50,000/- and two cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each were issued but the cheques were dishonoured on presentation on account of insufficiency of funds. The complainant informed the accused persons of the dishonour of the cheques but on their assurance he did not pursue his remedy under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It is further alleged that the total dues of the complainant outstanding against the accused persons as on 18.12.2001 including rupees fifteen lacs being the security amount, was Rs. 36,50,000/-. He repeatedly contacted the accused pensons and two fresh cheques of Rs. It is further alleged that the total dues of the complainant outstanding against the accused persons as on 18.12.2001 including rupees fifteen lacs being the security amount, was Rs. 36,50,000/-. He repeatedly contacted the accused pensons and two fresh cheques of Rs. 25,000/- each were issued in the name of the complainant but on presentation both of them were dishonored. 4. According to the complaint petition, the date of occurrence was May, 1998 till the finding of the complaint petition. 5. It appears that after filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and two witnesses were examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, after considering the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant and the witnesses passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2002. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were altogether nine accused persons in this case including the Company and though, it has been alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner was also a Director of the Company, no specific allegation has been made in the entire complaint against him when the role of accused nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 has been specifically mentioned. He further submitted that the petitioner was a Director of the Company but resigned on 4.10.1997 and was not a Director of the Company at the relevant period and, therefore, there was no question of his involvement at any point of time in this dealing. A photocopy of the certified true copy of Form No. 32 filed by the Company in the office of the Assistant Registrar of Companies in N.C.T. of Delhi and Haryana (annexure-2) has been filed to show that the petitioner had resigned on 4.10.1.997 (i.e. prior to the occurrence) and particulars of this change in Form No. 32 was filed on 6.10.1998 i.e. after the alleged inducement of the complainant in the office of the Registrar of Companies. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 could not controvert the above facts and Annexure-2. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the above documents filed, I think it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to proceed with the trial against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No. 2 could not controvert the above facts and Annexure-2. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the above documents filed, I think it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to proceed with the trial against the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate and the subsequent proceeding of the case only insofar as they relate to the petitioner-accused No. 3 Mr. Vikram Luthra are hereby quashed. This application is, thus, allowed. 9. It may, however, be made clear that it was also submitted that this application has been filed in the name of Vipin Luthra whereas accused no. 3 in the complaint petition has been described as Vikram Luthra but since the other particulars of the case i.e. parentage, residential address tallied with Vipin Luthra, the petitioner, the present application has been filed and accepted in the name of Vipin Luthra.