RAJESHKUMAR MADHUSOODAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Rs.the Code' for short) for quashing and setting aside the process issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Court No.36 at Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.59178 of 2019 qua the present applicants filed under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Rs.the NI Act' for short).

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of this application are such the impugned complaint is filed by the respondent no.2 alleging that the complainant is a non-banking finance company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956; that the company is having its regional office at address mentioned in the cause title of the complaint; that the complainant- company is in the business of providing various loans. It is further alleged in the complaint that the complainant- company has sanctioned to the respondent no.3-accused no.1 of credit facility upto Rs.40 crores by way of channels finance facility; that the original accused nos.2 to 4 are the directors/ guarantors of the accused no.1, accused no.5 is Managing Director of the accused no.1; accused no.6 is the Director of the accused no.1, accused nos.7 and 8 are the Additional Directors of accused no.1 and accused nos.9 to 11 are the guarantors of the accused no.1; it is further averred in the complaint that the accused nos.2 to 11 are responsible for the day-to-day business of the accused no.1; that the accused no.3 in his capacity as director/authorized signatory of the accused no.1 has executed a channel finance agreement dtd. 22/2/2018 with the complainant company and thereby agreed to adhere to and comply with all the terms and conditions of the said agreement; that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the accused no.3 has issued the cheque in favour of the complainant towards the repayment of the said facility for Rs.18,99,63,688/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Kunnur and that when the said cheque was presented by the complainant, it was returned dishonoured with an endorsement Rs.Drawer's sign not as per mandate" and that the intimation of the dishonour of the cheque was received by the complainant vide memo/advise dtd. 10/5/2019; thereafter the demand notice was issued, however, as the accused failed to make the payment and therefore the complaint is filed and the process is issued against the accused by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is this complaint and process which are prayed to be quashed by way of this application qua the applicants i.e. accused nos.2,3,6 and 1 of the complaint.

(3.) Rule. Learned APP Ms.Bhatt waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.1 and learned advocate Mr.Dave waives service of notice of rule for respondent no.2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.