SUNDARAM FINANCE SERVICES LTD Vs. GRANDTRUST FINANCE LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 64 HABIBULLA ROAD T NAGAR CHENNAI 6000 017

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the private complaint in E.O.C.C.No.128 of 1999, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences No.1), Egmore, Chennai, filed by M/s.Granttrust Finance Limited represented by its Authorised Agent and Credit Officer Mr.M.Prabhakar against the petitioners, along with two other accused, who are not before this Court, for offences under Section 68 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 and under Sections 409, 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AT the outset, I may state that neither of the parties have brought to the notice of the court that under what Section the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint. However, the fact remains that the complaint is only at the initial stage and moreover, this being a private complaint, evidence has to be recorded and only then charges has to be framed by the Magistrate. Therefore, admittedly witnesses have not been examined and charges has not been framed yet. AT this stage, the petitioner who are A-1 and A-2 have come forward with the present petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners would further persuade this Court that what has to be seen is that whether there is any intention of cheating at the time of making the representation and he would stress that the agreement dated 1.9.95 has alone to be considered and on going through the agreement, it is seen that there is absolutely no element of cheating and according to the agreement the date mentioned for the company to go public was on 30.4.96. But due to certain unforeseen circumstance, the said company could not go public and at best, it may only amount to a breach of an agreement, for which the complainant would be entitled to seek remedies before the civil Court.