H V RANGASWAMY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Mumbai dated 9th October, 1997, in Criminal Revision Application No. 99 of 1997 and for quashing the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Mumbai in C. C. No. 76/s/95 dated 3rd December, 1996.

(2.) ADMITTED facts for the purpose of the decision of this petition are that the petitioner No. 1 was working with Canara Bank at Bangalore and petitioner No. 2 was working with Canara Bank at Mumbai. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The second respondent is the original complainant who had filed complaint under sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, of I. P. C. against the petitioners and five other accused.

(3.) THE allegation in the complaint is that at the relevant time respondent No. 2 was working as an Accountant of a Steel Merchandising firm known as Yatin Steels which had its office at 50-A Baroda Street, Bombay-9. He has also been an agent for Life Insurance Corporation. The complaint was filed against a firm trading in steel items who were arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 5 and against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It was stated that since 1989, respondent No. 2 had maintained an account with New Bank of India, Mandvi Branch, Bombay. In April, 1991, accused Nos. 2 to 4 represented to respondent No. 2 that they were facing financial difficulties. Thus a cash loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- was given to accused Nos. 2 to 4 by Respondent No. 2. This was given against a Hundi in favour of respondent No. 2 dated 8th April, 1991. This was also supported by a post dated cheque dated 27th November, 1991, in the sum of Rs. 1,11,440/ -. Upon the cheque having been dishonoured, respondent No. 2 prosecuted the accused Nos. 2 to 4for offences under sections 138 to 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the Act" ). On 20th March, 1992 respondent No. 2 received a letter dated 18th March, 1992, from Canara Bank, Lavello Road, Bangalore calling upon him to arrange for the clearance of the dues amounting to Rs. 5,36,250/ -. This amount was demanded as one Shri Pankaj Joshi, accused No. 4, had not made any arrangement for payment of the bills which were dishonoured. Similar letters had been sent to accused Nos. 1 to 5. In reply to the query made by respondent No. 2, Canara Bank sent a number of documents purported to have been executed by him. It was stated that the respondent No. 2 had executed the document as a guarantor for the loans which had been given to accused Nos. 1 to 5. Inspite of the denial Canara Bank filed a suit against the accused persons as also respondent No. 2 on 27-1-1994. In this suit the Bank had relied on a Guarantee Agreement dated 19th April, 1991. On coming to know that the Bank had filed the civil suit on the basis of forged document, respondent No. 2 filed the complaint on the basis of which the two impugned orders have been passed. The complaint was filed on 5th April, 1995. On pursuing the complaint as well as the documents, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued process, inter alia, against the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 21st Court, Bandra, Bombay for revocation of the issue of process on the ground that the said Court had no jurisdiction under section 195 (b) (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to entertain the complaint. This plea of the petitioners has been rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate by his order dated 3rd December, 1996. Against the said order, the petitioners filed criminal revision application which has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 9th October, 1997.