RAMESHKUMAR PURUSHOTTAMDAS TANEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court is the original complainant in the complaint being Inquiry Case no.64 of 2000 filed by him against respondents for the offence punishable under Section 380, 441, 120 -B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner prays that by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the order dated 31 -1 -2002 passed in Criminal Revision Application no.38/2001 at Exh.17 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, City Civil & Sessions Court whereby the learned Sessions Judge had confirmed the order dated 19 -12 -2000 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no.19, Ahmedabad dismissing the said complaint be quashed and set aside as the same is bad and unsustainable on the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition.

(2.) THE respondents nos.1 and 2 are the son and mother respectively while the respondents nos.3 and 4 are the Manager and Regional Manager of the respondent -Development Credit Co -operative Bank Ltd. It was the case of the petitioner that a company was established in the year 1992 in the name and style of Ms. Paul -Tex Pvt.Ltd. in which Taneja Group to which complainant belonged and the Paul group had 50% shareholdings each. According to the petitioner, the said Company had obtained loan of Rs.48 lacs from the said bank were the respondents nos.4 and 5 are the Manager and Regional Manager respective, that the petitioner stood guarantor to the said loan, that by using the said loan amount machineries were purchased and installed in the said Company and the Company was running smoothly. The machineries were hypothecated to the said bank. However, in the year 1995 differences cropped up between the side of the petitioner which included his witness Kishen Taneja who was the Director of the said Company in addition to the respondents nos.2 and 3, as a result of which, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into between the two groups, according to which, the Paul Group took over the entire liability of the Taneja Group, and therefore, the liability of Taneja Group came to an end. Thus, according to the Memorandum of Understanding , the respondents nos.2 and 3 are liable to make the payment of bank loan. It is also alleged in the complaint that respondents nos.2 and 3 original accused promised and gave assurnce that as far as possible they will make the payment of bank loan and as soon as they make the payment of the loan amount, the personal guarantee furnished by the petitioner would come to an end. However, the respondents nos.2 and 3 had not paid the loan amount, and hence respondents nos.4 and 5 filed suit before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for the recovery of the loan amount granted in favour of the said Company. During the pendency of the suit, the DRT passed order directing appoinment of Court Commissioner and the Court Commissioner submitted his report, according to which, the machineries etc. were lying the said Company. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the machineries and stocks of the Company were found to have been disposed of by the respondents.2 and 3 at a lesser price by hatching a criminal conspiracy with the respondents nos.4 and 5 whereby it is alleged that the respondents nos.4 and 5 had made huge amount of illegal gains from the respondents nos.2 and 3. Under these circumstances, the petitioner lodged complaint being Inquiry Case no.64 of 2000 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who ordered an investigation by Police Inspector, Vatva Police Station, Ahmedabad, under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. on 25 -9 -2000. The report of the investigation submitted on 11 -10 -2002 at Annexure "C" was to the effect that the said machineries were disposed of. The trial Magistrate also issued notice to the complainant and the complainant filed his reply at Exh.2 wherein it has been contended that as per the Panchnama prepared by the Police Officer, all the machineries etc. that were lying the in the premises of the said Company were sold at lesser price by the respondents ,and thereby, pocketed illegal gains. The complainant had, therefore, prayed that the complaint be sent for investigation under Section 156(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ultimately, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dismissed the said complaint on the ground that the petitioner may have recourse to civil law in respect of his liability as guarantor. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal of the said complaint, the petitioner moved Criminal Revision Application no.38 of 2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad which also met with the same fate by order dated 31 -1 -2002. It is against this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, that the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Special Criminal Application.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel Mr. J.T.Trivedi for the petitioner, learned A.P.P Mr. K.P.Raval, A.P.P. for the respondent no.1 -State, learned Counsel Mr. Chitnis for the respondents nos.2 and 3 and learned Counsel Mr.Nalini Lodha for the respondents nos.4 and 5.