(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the first information report in case crime No. 839 of 1999 under Sections 420/467/468/471/504, I.P.C. registeired at Police Station Sector- 20, Noida district Gautam Budh Nagar. A further prayer has been made directing the police not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.
(2.) The factual aspect of the case emerging from the averments made in the writ petition as also the copy of the first information report annexed therewith is that petitioners No. 1 and 2, related as husband and iwfe are the Directors of Maha Vishnu Financial Services Limited, Chennai (for short the company"). Dr. Purshottam Lal, respondent No. 4, while working in Apollo Hospital, Chennai had advanced loan of rupees fifty lacs to the financial company and subsequently a further sum of fifty lacs from his deposits in the Canara Bank, Villivakkam Branch, Chennai. Thus, the total loan availed of by the company amounted to one crore. It is alleged by the petitioners that S. Xavier, the Director of the company who was actively involvled in the day to day affairs of the company, indiscriminately advanced money to the tune of several lacs to his friends and others knowing fully well that they would not be in a position to repay the same. In due course the company sustained huge financial loss on account of which it was unable to discharge its financial liabilities to respondent No. 4. During the year 1996-97 the company repaid a sum of Rs. 28.5 lacs, to respondent No. 4 by means of demand drafts and in respect of the rest unpaid amount, on the petitioners issued post dated chequess which on presentation were dishonoured. The respondent No. 4, therefore, filed two complaint cases before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Later on he also filed as many as ten such cases against them and other Directors of the company in the courts of Ghaziabad and Gautam Budh Nagar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420, IPC In all the complaint cases it is alleged, the allegations are the same and similar in nautre, inasmuch, as the cheques issued to respondent No. 4 on different dates were dishonoured. The Court in all these cases having taken cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have issued summons for their appearance. The sole intention of filing large number of cases by the respondent No. 4 was to get the petitioners arrested and put them behind the prison bar and as they on their appearance were released on bail by the Cheenai Court, he in connivance with the local police of Noida lodged the impugned first information report making the selfsame allegations with certain improvements which are manifestly false and concocted with a view to pressurise them to satisfy his demand of exorbitant interest which was never agreed to between the parties. The lodging of the said report being mala fide and with oblique motive, contend the petitioners, the Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India should quash the said first information report at the thereshold.
(3.) Sri A.D. Giri, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued with skill and adroitness that on the facts and circumstances it is a fit case where the Court should in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by Art. 226 of the Constitution should come to the help of the petitioners in order to save them from police harassments. Elaborating the submissions Sri Giri has urged that the cheques issued to Dr. Purushottam Lal, respondent No. 4 have been returned dishonoured by the Bank on presentation, complaints have been filed and cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned by the Court. On the same set of facts with some alteration and addition which ex facie are absurd and untrue first information report has been lodged by the respondent No. 4 on receipt of which the police has registered a case under Sections 420/467/468/471, I.P.C. and this has been done with oblique motive to get them arrested and put behind bar in order to coerce them to accede to his demand. In the circumstances urges Sri Giri, if the police is allowed to undertake investigation it will amount to abuse of process of law and, therefore, justice demands that the first information report and the consequent investigation taken up by the police should be quashed. In support of his submission he has relied on a recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636 : (2000 All LJ 496).