ANIL K KHANDELWAL Vs. MAKSUD SAIYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Misc. Application No.5389 of 2005 is filed by Dr.Anil K. Khandelwal and 14 others under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Complaint Inquiry No.14 of 2005 lodged by the complainant, namely, Shri Maksud Saiyed, Director of Nagami Nicotine Pvt.Ltd., in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 120-B, 177, 181, 191, 192, 200, 209,405, 409, 415, 420, 425, 463, 464, 468, 470, 471, 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and which has been registered as M Case No.7/2005 at Sayajiganj Police Station pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, dated 28.2.2005 forwarding the Criminal Complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) The case of the complainant / present respondent is that Dena Bank floated a public issue of 8 crores equity shares of Rs.10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs.17/- at a price of Rs.27/- each aggregating to Rs.216/- crores. The issue of equity share was being made pursuant to the sanction of Government of India and in consultation of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide its letter F No.001/26/2003-BOA dated October 19, 2004 under Section 3(2B) (c ) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, as amended and the resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors of the Bank on October 23, 2003 and the shareholders of the Bank at the EGM held on November 25, 2003. It is alleged by the complainant that in the prospectus published for the purpose of Public Issue, some false and misleading information were given with regard to sanctioned limits, the dues and Export Bills of the Company, namely,Nagami Nicotines Pvt. Ltd., of which the complainant is the Director, and thus the accused persons have committed offences. It is further alleged that the accused persons conspired with each other to commit the offences and, therefore, they have committed offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is also the case of the complainant that accused No.1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the accused persons furnished false information, statements and evidence and thereby they have committed the offence under Sections 191, 192, 177 and 181 of I.P.C. It is also alleged that by making such false statements in the prospectus as regards the complainant's company, its dues and the litigations pending, the complainant has been defamed and therefore, the accused persons have committed offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 of I.P.C., and punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. It is also the case of the complainant that the Bank maliciously filed a claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, without any justifiable cause by fabricating false evidence. It is also the case of the complainant that he has filed a Civil Suit against the Bank in Baroda for recovery of Rs.993.47 lacs towards damages for non submission of Export Bills and non releasing of the sanctioned limits. It is also the case of the complainant that in the prospectus false information has been furnished that the suit is pending before DRT, Ahmedabad whereas the suit has been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused No.12 had made certain false affirmation and verification and has also fabricated evidence for the same and in the same manner accused no.14 has without any authority signed and affirmed some statements. The gravamen of the allegation of the complainant is that the Bank has filed a false claim against the company by virtue of which the business of the complainant got seriously affected and his reputation in the society has got tarnished and thereby he has been defamed by the Bank.

(3.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 28.1.2005 sent the complaint for investigation by police under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure code and the same came to be registered as M Case No.7 of 2005 at Sayajiganj Police Station, Vadodara. Since the present petitioners / original accused are of the view that the complainant has failed to disclose commission of any offence and as the very act of the complainant in lodging such a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint is a gross abuse of process of law, the present petitioners / original accused persons have preferred this petition invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the complaint.