STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. VIPIN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 30.04.2004 whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be summoned to face trial for the offences under Section 420/406 IPC. The petition is also directed against the order dated 20.07.2004 whereby non-bailable warrants have been directed to be issued against the petitioners 2, 3, and4.

(2.) By an order dated 20.05.2005 this court directed the issuance of notice to the respondent/complainant. The respondent was served and Mr R. K. Gupta entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. He was also present on the last date when this matter came up for hearing, i.e, on 30.10.2006. Today nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. No request for any passover or adjournment has been made either on their behalf. It is in these circumstances that the matter has been taken up in the absence of the counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the summoning order is not proper because the petitioners, which include the Standard Chartered Bank and its Managing Director, Director and an employee, had no liability or responsibility to deliver the vehicle to the complainant. The impugned order reveals that the transaction was of purchase of a car by the complainant from Competent Automobiles Ltd. The complainant had financed the purchase of this vehicle from the Standard Chartered Bank. For this purpose, an application for a loan was made. A copy of the said application is placed at page 18 of the paper book, which clearly indicates that the dealer/seller of the vehicle was Competent Automobiles Ltd. The loan application also indicates that the vehicle was to be hypothecated to the Standard Chartered Bank for the duration during which the repayments were to be made. There is nothing on record to suggest that it was the responsibility of the bank to ensure the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant. The case against the petitioners is that pursuant to the finance provided by the bank, the complainant had handed over 48 post dated cheques to the bank towards repayment of the loan for the purchase of the car. According to the complainant the cheques were handed over on the assurance that the same would be presented for encashment only after the delivery of the vehicle to the complainant.