L. SRIRAM Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C. No. 3255 of 2011 on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

(2.) The Sub Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team II, Egmore, Chennai filed a final report in Crime No. 288 of 2010 of the Central Crime Branch EDF Wing, Egmore against the present petitioner as well as one Prasanjirath s/o Ashok Kumar for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused.

(3.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows. The petitioner is the branch manager and Assistant Vice President of HDFC Bank, T. Nagar Branch. The de-facto complainant/2nd respondent is the Managing Partner of one Penquin International Limited, having current account with HDFC Bank, T.Nagar branch. In the course of normal business, a bank guarantee for Rs. 38,25,000/- with 100% margin ( in the form of FDR) was issued by the HDFC Bank, at the request of M/s Penquin International Limited to M/s Binayak Enterprises. The bank guarantee was issued on 19.01.2010 for a period of one year i.e. upto 18.01.2011 and also mentioning the claim date to be the same. The de-facto complainant M/s Penquin International Limited has alleged that despite having produced a letter dated 11.02.2010 from the beneficiary M/s Binayak Enterprises, cancelling the said bank guarantee, the petitioner went ahead paying of bank guarantee amount to the beneficiary (creditor), without even referring the matter to them. According to the de-facto complainant, the matter of issue of bank guarantee being tripartite in nature and when there was correspondence clearly mentioning that the beneficiary themselves have expressed their willingness to cancel the bank guarantee, the act of the petitioner in going ahead with the payment of bank guarantee smacks of collusion of the petitioner with the beneficiary to siphon off the funds belonging to the complainant. In fact, an interim order of injunction dated 03.06.2010 was issued by this court in O.A. No. 672 of 2010 in C.S. No. 570 of 2010. The payment of the guarantee was made on 29.05.2010 much before the issue of the interim orders from this court.