PASUMAI IRRIGATION LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 29 POLICE COMMISSIONER OFFICE ROAD EGMORE CHENNAI €“ 8 Vs. MANSI FINANCE CHENNAI LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.4628 of 2000 on the file of the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and quash the same, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition on averments such as that the petitioner is a limited company doing business in drip irrigation system and more than 150 persons are working in the company; that during the course of business, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.25lakhs from the respondent and subsequently, it was repaid with interest, but the respondent, with fraudulent intention and to harass the petitioner, filed an application under Section 439(1)(b) read with Section 433(e) and (f) and 434(1)(a) of the Companies Act before this court in Company Petition No. 529 of 2000 for winding up of the petitioners company, which is pending.

(2.) THE petitioner would further submit that suppressing the fact of filing of C.P. 529 of 2000 before this court, the respondent filed a private complaint contemplating the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 read with 34 Indian Penal Code before the Court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai alleging that the petitioner has committed the offences in respect of the amount claimed in C.P. No. 529 of 2000; that the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to the Inspector of Police, B1 Police Station, Chennai -1 for investigation and report. in these circumstances, the petitioner, stating that the respondent is converting the civil dispute into a criminal case in order to harass the petitioner, has come forward to file the above criminal original petition seeking the relief extracted supra.

(3.) IN consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it could be assessed that the petitioner company, its Chairman, Managing Director and the Directors have been arrayed as the accused in the complaint lodged before the court of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 INdian Penal Code on averments such as that during the month of January, 1996, the accused approached the complainant for the sanction of a loan to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs to meet the working capital causing production of various correspondences further assuring to repay the same with interest on agreed terms; that the accused No.2 to 10 have control over the first accused company who undertook to repay the loan taken from the complainant company.