P K GUPTA Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in spite of service. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of proceedings in FIR No. 18/97 registered under Section 406, IPC with Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi. The allegations made in the complaint are that some time in the year 1995, the petitioner No. 1 Mr. P.K. Gupta, Managing Director of M/s. Prestige HM Polycontainers Ltd. had approached the complainant for getting on lease equipment worth Rs. 20 lakh and consequently lease rental agreement dated 14.11.95 described as Lease Agreement bearing No. LE-17 was executed. This Lease Agreement contemplated payment of over 36 months and 36 post-dated cheques were signed by Sashank Gupta, Executive Director of the said company and were given to the complainant. The agreement further provided that in the event of default in payment of the lease rental, the lessee company would immediately return the leased equipment entrusted to it. The allegations in the complaint is that the petitioners defaulted in making regular payment of monthly rental and some of the cheques given in advance were bounced. Because of this default on the part of the petitioner, the petitioners were required to give back the lease equipment which was entrusted to the petitioners and on their failure to do so they allegedly committed an offence under Section 406 of IPC, in addition to cheating the lessee.

(2.) Case was registered, investigation carried out and the charge-sheet filed. When the matter came up before the learned MM for framing of charge, plea was taken that cognizance of offence under Section 406, IPC could not be taken as the charge-sheet was filed after expiry of the period of limitation. Learned MM has passed order dated 21.7.2005 as per which prima facie case against the petitioners is made out for offence under Section 420 read with Section 120B, IPC. Thus charge under Section 406 is dropped and instead as per order dated 21.7.2005 the petitioners are implicated under Section 420, IPC.

(3.) Under the Lease Rental Agreements, on failure of the petitioners to make payment of lease rentals, the complainant was entitled to have the possession of leased equipment which according to the complainant was entrusted to the petitioners and the ownership of the said equipment remained vested with the complainant. It is for this reason that even the FIR was registered under Section 406, IPC. However, the learned MM has held that no case is made out under Section 406, IPC presumably because of the reason that the learned MM was conscious of the fact that insofar as charge under Section 406, IPC is concerned the case is time- barred. Be that as it may, statement is made by Mr. K.K. Sud, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners had even earlier offered to give back the equipment to the complainant and it is the complainant who did not take back delivery of that equipment. He submits that even now petitioners are ready and willing to give back equipment.