VIJAY AGGARWAL Vs. EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent on the ground that summoning of petitioner was not warranted by the facts as disclosed in the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the complainant M/s. Emirates Bank International (respondent) filed a criminal complaint before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra against petitioner and three more persons, all close relatives of the petitioner, under Sections 415/418/420 read with Section 120-B and Section 34 IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate at Ahmednagar after recording pre-summoning evidence took cognizance of the offence and summoned all the four respondents including petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court for transfer of the case from Ahmednagar to Agra. However, the Supreme Court transferred the criminal complaint to the competent court at Delhi. Thus, the criminal complaint was transferred from Ahmednagar to the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts, Delhi. After the criminal complaint was transferred, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the complaint qua him. It is submitted that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action against the petitioner and summoning of petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate at Ahmednagar was bad in law. There was no act ascribed to the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the complaint shows that Ajay Aggarwal, brother of the petitioner, had availed facilities from the complainant bank and had incurred a liability of 19,250,344.69 dhirams as on June, 1984. The bank became apprehensive that this amount would not be paid and, therefore, pursued the matter with Ajay Aggarwal. Ajay Aggarwal entered into an agreement dated 27th June, 1984 with complainant bank whereby he acknowledged the liabilities to the above extent towards complainant and assured the complainant bank about his creditworthiness, solvency and gave guarantee to make the payment.