SHIKHA SINGLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., petitioners/accused seek quashment of complaint Case No.568/98 pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

(2.) Copy of complaint is placed at pages 22 to 38 on the file. M/s. Jindal Menthol India Ltd./respondent No. 2 herein is the complainant while Ms. Shikha Singla, Rishab Singla and Sadhu Ram Singla, petitioners 1 to 3 are accused Nos. 4,3 and 2 respectively. M/s. Rom Industries Ltd., respondent No. 3 has been arrayed as accused No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint that complainant is a body corporate incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business, amongst others, of financing and leasing. At the request of accused Nos. 1 to 4 and on M/s. Ishank Credit and Finance Ltd. and Dheeraj Kumar, agreeing to stand as guarantors for accused No. 1, the complainant-company sanctioned Bill discounting facility of Rs. 51,25,683/- to accused No. 1 for a period of 90 days at the interest of 28.5% per annum under an agreement dated 8th March, 1996. Accused No. 2 pledged 80600 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 6100698 to 6225097 while accused No. 3 57900 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 6380698 to 6440697 of accused No. 1- company with the complainant to secure the loan facility. Accused No. 4 also pledged 17300 shares bearing distinctive Nos. 6465698 to 6482997 of accused No. 1 with complainant-company to secure said loan facility. M/s. Datta Singla and Co., Chartered Accountants/accused No. 5 issued a certificate dated 22nd December, 1995 certifying that necessary enforcement had been made on share certificates of the shares pledged by accused Nos. 2 to 4 regarding restricting condition as "these shares shall not be sold/hypothecated/transferred before 25th December, 1999". It is alleged that accused 2 to 4, amongst others, further executed irrevocable power of attorneys dated 8th February, 1996 authorising the complainant-company to transfer, sell, dispose of or otherwise realise or encash the pledged shares and apply net proceeds thereof towards the outstanding accused No. 1 in case of default by accused No. 1 in making payment to complainant-company. Vide letter dated 8th February, 1996, accused No. 1, amongst others, confirmed that it would transfer the pledged shares in the event of default in repayment obligation arising under Bill discounting facility sanctioned by complainant-company. In pursuance of said facility, a Hundi/Bill of Exchange being No. 542 for a sum of Rs. 51,25,682.73 executed by M/s. Jumbo Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. as drawer on accused No. 1 as drawee, was discounted by complainant-company. This Hundi/Bill of Exchange was duly accepted by accused No. 1 who was paid a sum of Rs. 47,65,481 /- after deducting interest and draft charges vide a demand draft by complainant-company. Accused No. 1 towards discharge of liability under above Hundi-Bill of Exchange handed over post-dated cheque bearing No. 755383 dated 6th June, 1996 for a sum of Rs. 51,25,683/- drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Model Basti, New Delhi to complainant-company. This cheque on presentation was returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds. It is also alleged that later on it came to the knowledge of complainant-company that said shares pledged by accused Nos. 2 to 4 could not have been hypothecated/sold/transferred before 25th December, 1999 as the same were in lock-in period. Accused 1 to 4 had, thus, fraudulently represented to complainant-company that the pledged shares were valuable securities. Aforesaid certificate dated 22nd December, 1995 issued by accused No. 5 with the knowledge and consent of accused 1 to 4 as also letter dated 8th February, 1996 confirming, amongst others, that accused No. 1 would transfer the said shares upon lodgment with it in the event of default in repayment obligation arising under Bill discounting finance facility, were false and forged by the accused. It is also stated that as on 25th October, 1997, a sum of Rs. 26,44,837.84 was due and payable by accused No. 1 to the complainant-company for recovery whereof it has filed a civil suit. It was prayed that accused be summoned and prosecuted for the offences committed by them. To be only noted that the Metropolitan Magistrate seized of the complaint by the order dated 28th January, 2000 summoned the accused to face trial for the offences under Sections 420/463/464/467/471 and 34, IPC.

(3.) In the present petition, it is admitted that the petitioners pledged their shareholdings in respondent No. 3-company as guarantors as alleged. However, it is pleaded that those shares were replaced by fresh set of shares on 20th September, 1996 and instead of returning the shares initially pledged, the respondent No. 2 initiated those criminal proceedings against them. It is further alleged that against the payment of Rs. 47,65,481/- made by way of discount of Bill of Exchange, the respondent No. 2 has already recovered Rs. 42,70,230.19 by encashing the securities of petitioners. It is claimed that complaint did not contain essential ingredients of the offences complained of.