ASHOK GIRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 7185 of 2017 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate for CCB Cases and CBCID Cases, Allikulam, Egmore, Chennai for the offence under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC.

(2.) On the complaint of 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent registered a case in Crime No. 163 of 2012 and on completion of the investigation, filed a final report, citing LW1 to LW21 as witnesses and documents. Against which the present quash petition.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the 2nd respondent initially started a Proprietary concern in the name of M/s. Vaishnovi Infrastructure Engineering Private Limited (VIEPL) in the year 1997. Later converted the Proprietary concern into a company. During the year 2006, the 1st petitioner joined 2nd respondent's company. During 2007 he was looking after the Accounts Administration, Income Tax, Bank Job, New Auditors, Customers, Suppliers and E.R.P New Software. The defacto complainant was taking care of Mathuranthagam unit of the company, keeping faith and trust on the 1st petitioner. The defacto complainant did not question about the Administration of the company. When the defacto complainant asked for the accounts of the said company, the 1st petitioner stated that new software for the accounts have been installed, hence the accounts could not be accessed immediately. By giving such reasons, he was delaying in producing the accounts. The 1st petitioner by making wrong representation and giving false promises borrowed substantial amount in the name of the company and misappropriated the money illegally for his personal benefits. The company was irregular in repaying to Vijaya Bank for the credit facilities availed, for which the personal property of the defacto complainant was given as security. On verification it was found that several charges were made against the properties of the company without any valid resolution of the company. Hence, the 1st petitioner committed offence of falsifying accounts, mismanagement, cheating and misappropriation.