LAWS(DLH)-2005-5-201

ONKAR NATH GOENKA Vs. GUJRAT LEASE FINANCE LTD

Decided On May 16, 2005
Onkar Nath Goenka Appellant
V/S
Gujrat Lease Finance Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition bearing CrI.M.C.No.485/2005 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order dated 27.4.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. Rev. No. 637/2004 as well as for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.5427/1. Accompanying the present petition, are applications bearing Crl.M.A.No.808/2006 & 809/2006 seeking stay and exemption respectively.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one M/s. Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. had taken on lease certain equipments from the respondent. Consequent thereto lease agreements dated 16.8.1993 and 30.8.1993 were signed. At the time of the execution of the lease agreement certain post dated cheques were handed over to the respondent. However, the said cheques were returned with the remarks "Account Frcezcd/Account Attached". This was followed by a legal notice dated 13.7.1998 and thereafter it complaint bearing C.C. No. 5427/1 alleging offences punishable under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Sections 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petitioner being the Managing Director of M/s. Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd. was also impleaded as one of the accused in the complaint. In pursuance of the complaint, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi, summoned the petitioner to stand trial for the said offences. The petitioner thereafter moved an application dated 4.4.2003 for recalling, of the, summoning order and for dropping of proceedings on the ground that the Bank accounts of the accused company were frozen by an order of CBI wherein no operations were allowed and that the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) of Delhi vide order dated 15.6.1998 had already restrained the alienation of all movable and immovable assets of the petitioner and the accused company. After perusal of the application, the learned MM vide order dated 18.8.2004 discharged the petitioner. Against the order of discharge respondent filed Revision Petition bearing no.741104, which was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 27.4.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner relies upon the (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 745, Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. and Ors. and more particularly para 19, which is reproduced thus :