(1.) These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases have come before us on a reference made by Sankaran Nair, J. Reference Order reads as follows:
(2.) Criminal MC No. 488 of 1987 is by two petitioners, who are accused in CC No. 16 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, and Crl. MC No. 493 of 1987 is by one petitioner who is the first accused in CC No. 228 of 1986 on the file of the same court. Petitioners in Crl. MC 488/87 are charged with offences punishable under S.406, 409 and 420 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner in Crl. MC 493 of 1987 also, along with others is charged with offences punishable under S.406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek to have the complaint pending before the Trial Court quashed by this court in exercise of the powers under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) For understanding the true case set up by the petitioners, it is necessary to know the circumstances under which the complaints happened to be filed. The first petitioner in MC No. 488 of 1987 and the sole petitioner in Crl. MC 493 of 1987 was the Managing Partner of a Partnership Firm, M/s. Samarias Finance. It bad many branches in various parts of the country. The 2nd petitioner in Crl. MC 488 of 1987, was the Manager of Ernakulam Branch of the firm. The firm published many advertisements canvassing depositors. Many advantageous benefits, which were not or which could not have been granted by nationalised or scheduled banks, were offered by this firm. Fascinated by those offers, a large number of people deposited their lives earnings with this firm. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the deposits received by the firm amount to 18 to 19 crores of rupees. By the enactment of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1984, the firm found it difficult to carry on its business. They were forced to convert the firm into a Public Limited Company. The new company floated by the first petitioner in Crl. MC 488 of 1987, is "Samarias Housing Finance Ltd." That came into existence in 1984 and it in said that the business of the firm was taken over by the limited company. When the depositors asked for return of their money, the company found it impossible to repay the amount. Some of the depositors approached Criminal Courts. CC No. 16 of 1987 and 222 of 1986 are two cut of those many cases.