D ELANGO Vs. S DAVID PRABAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the above criminal Original Petition to call for the records and quash all further proceedings in C. C. No. 372 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II , Coimbatore.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant's case in C. C. No. 372 of 2007 is that the complainant is doing business at Sowripalayam under the name and style of M/s helix. He is one of the partners of M/s Helix company. The said company is manufacturing pneumatic valves, etc. The accused 1 and 2 / petitioners are managing Director and Director respectively. The accused persons purchased materials on credit basis from several parties and also borrowed money from the banks and private parties both in the name of company and in their individual capacity. The complainant also supplied his products to the company and lent money to the accused. The accused had filed a petition I. P. No. 75 of 1998 wherein they had to pay a sum of Rs. 12,21,981/- to M/s. Helix as well as the complainant. The accused were conspiring and cheated all their creditors. The accused, in the year 1998, stealthily removed all the raw materials, finished products and other properties in the company, and also the name board, with a view to cheat all and filed insolvency petition in I. P. No. 5 of 1998 in the court of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore against all their creditors. As per the list of creditors appended to the petition the accused were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 42,98,137. 59/ -. As against the above said sum due, there were properties worth only Rs. 14,26,000/ -. The complainant was the 3rd respondent in the above said insolvency petition. Further, the accused persons removed all properties from the company and filed the insolvency petition.

(3.) FURTHER,the accused persons did not appear in the case I. P. No. 75 of 1998 filed by them. So, the said petition was dismissed on 12. 07. 2004. further, the accused persons ought to have handed over all the properties to the court at the time of filing the insolvency petition. The accused person had filed the insolvency petition for the prpose of undue gain. Public has also been cheated of money. Hence, the complainant has filed the case against the accused on an alleged offence under section 421 of I. P. C. Supporting the complaint, three witnesses have been mentioned, and also a list of documents has been furnished.