INDIA CEMENT LTD Vs. K.P. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent herein filed a private complaint under S. 200 Cr. P.C. before the 6th Addl. CMM. Bangalore against the present petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Ss. 418 and 420 r/w S. 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint under S. 156 (3) Cr. P.C. to the Koramangala Police Station for investigation and report.

(2.) THE allegations made in the complaint are that the complainant is the Managing Director of M/s Reddy Building Materials (1) Pvt. Ltd. As usual the M/s. India Cements Ltd. used to supply cement to the complainant company by accepting cheques but later on the said India Cements Ltd. informed the complainant that in addition to the cheques the company should give a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 2 lakh for the supply of cement and the complainant was prepared to give a bank guarantee for the said amount from the Vysya Bank. K.G. Road. Bangalore. Thereafter the 2nd petitioner Raghupathy demanded the complainant to take the bank guarantee only from the Union Bank of India. Madras. Where the Divisional Manager would kindly help in getting bank guarantee as he was his own brother etc. On his insistence the complainant produced the original documents for verification. The accused 2 to 5 had refused to return the documents to the respondent and they had also taken certain signatures in blank papers and obtained cheques. Further it is alleged that they had issued the acknowledgment. While the case was under investigation the Koramangala Police pursuant to the search warrant had searched the premises of the petitioners and recovered documents. On completion of the investigation police filed B report on 6 -8 -1997 stating that the case was one of civil nature. The petitioners filed protest petition on 8 -8 -1997 to the B summary report. They also filed an application on 12 -8 -1997 under Ss. 91 & 309 Cr. P.C. for release of the documents which were deposited in the Court by the police. This was objected by the 2nd respondent by filing a counter on 23 -9 -1997. However on 13 -10 -1997 the learned Magistrate by his order set aside the B Report and took cognizance of the case under S. 190 Cr. P.C. against the petitioners for the alleged offence punishable under Ss. 418 and 420 I.P.C. and issued process to the accused. Hence this petition is filed to set aside the said order dt. 13 -10 -1997 and further to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 15062/97 (PCR No. 744/96) on the file of the 6th Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore.

(3.) IN this case as stated above, the only apprehension of the complainant is the petitioners obtained signatures on blank papers and forms and may use the same for creating documents against him. In that context, it is relevant to refer to paragraph 11 of the complaint: "The accused committed offences punishable under S.s. 418. 420 r/w S. 34 of the I.P.C. Since on false promises, by force, under pressure, obtained the above said securities on the promise of bank guarantee and they have not obtained the bank guarantee nor returned the said securities, nor settled the amounts due to the complainant. But they threatened him and forcibly collected the land records, got signatures on 10 blank white papers collecting 25 blank cheque leaves book, stopped supplying cements to the complainant company, by not settling the amount due to the complainant company, by refusing to meet in person in the accused office, by refusing to receive the personnel communication and registered postal letter and further the accused by the way of threatening the complainant with dire consequences, the complainant strongly suspects that the said accused The India Cement Ltd. may convert the blank signed white papers and cheques as valuable securities and by keeping the records of the land they may foist a false civil and criminal litigation against the complainant and company with an intention to cheat the complainant and his company for illegal gains and further the complainant learnt that the accused are converting the above said Securities as valuable securities to knock off the illegal money for illegal gains, the acts of the accused are highly suspicious and they may cheat and it is learnt that the accused have filed a suit on false grounds with the conversion of the above said valuable securities or illegal gains, hence the accused are liable to be punished as per the law." From these allegations it is clear that in one breath the 1st respondent claims that the petitioners may convert these documents and may file a civil or criminal litigation and in the same breath he also says that a civil suit has already been filed. Therefore it is clear that the R -1 was not definite as to whether by the time the documents were created and the petitioners had filed the suit. On the other hand, he claims that the petitioners have not settled his dues notwithstanding the fact that by then the suit came to be filed by the petitioners to recover the sum of Rs. 14,51,000/ -. The 1st respondent also appeared before Court and as stated above, he also filed application calling for better particulars in the suit. That means he had verified the documents produced by the petitioners and therefore, he wanted some more better particulars. Further, subsequently the police seized the documents from the custody of the petitioners, that means to say these documents were not the documents produced before the Court basing their claim in the suit. Therefore, the apprehension of the 1st respondent is only surmise and imaginary and it cannot be at this stage said that prima facie there in sufficient ground for proceeding against these petitioners. Therefore even if the prosecution is allowed to continue, the chances of conviction are bleak in this case. Even if the documents which are seized from the custody of these petitioners are to be produced before the Court in the civil suit, the respondent will have full opportunity to establish as to whether, those documents are genuine or forged or manipulated' by the, petitioners for the purpose of the case. If these facts are established a different cause of action would arise for the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law depending on the decisions rendered by the civil Court in the said suit. From the above discussion it is also clear that the matter is purely and predominantly of civil nature and I feel that it is a fit case in which' the proceedings taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate are to be quashed as, premature.