RAJVIR INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.262 of 2006 of Mahankali Police Station, Hyderabad, the present criminal petition is filed.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this criminal petition may be stated as follows: A private complaint is lodged against the present petitioners alleging that Chairman and Managing Director of A.1 company developed lot of confidence and reposed immense trust in A.2 and A.3 on account of their close relationship. A.3 was the Chief Executive of Mahaboobnagar unit and Tirupur sales depot, and for the purpose of the two units, the complainant was required to issue cheques drawn in favour of third parties. It is further alleged that as the Chairman and Managing Director Mr. L.N. Agarwal is stationed in Hyderabad, it was taking considerable time for issuance of cheques in favour of third parties. In that context, negotiations took place between L.N. Agarwal and A.2 and A.3, in which A.2 and A.3 represented that all transactions are accounted and as the process of obtaining cheques from L.N. Agarwal on behalf of the company was taking considerable time, it would be advisable that signed blank cheques be left in the hands of A.2 and A.3 for efficient management of Mahaboobnagar unit and Tirupur sales depot. A.2 and A.3 also stated that they would not misuse the said blank cheques and that they would be used only for the purpose of business of Mahaboobnagar unit. L.N. Agarwal entirely believed the representation made by A.2 and A.3 and as per their inducement, he had given certain signed blank cheques to them. Thereafter, disputes cropped up between family of L.N. Agarwal and A.2 and A.3. Then, A.2 and A.3 incorporated A.1-company on 1-9-2004. A Company Petition was filed before this Court to approve the scheme of arrangement arrived at between A.1-company and the complainant company. As per the scheme of arrangement, Mahaboobnagar unit was transferred in favour of A. 1 -company. This Court by its Order dated 22-3-2005, approved the scheme of arrangement. In pursuance of the scheme of arrangement, Mahaboobnagar unit of the complainant company was demerged and it vested in A.1-company. The scheme has been fully implemented and A.2 and A.3 issued a letter dated 22-4-2005 that they would not demand any payment relating to Mahaboobnagar unit. In view of the differences between L.N. Agarwal and A.2 and A.3, the former requested the latter to return unused signed blank cheques which were with them. The Company Secretary also requested A.2 and A.3 to return the unused cheques. A.2 and A.3 entered into a conspiracy to misuse the said cheques. Thereupon the complainant lodged a complaint on 20-10-2006 with Mahankali police. However, police endorsed that there was no role for the police at that stage. It is further alleged that as per the understanding letter dated 1-10-2004, a telegram was received from A.1 to the effect that institutional liability of A.1 crosses Rs. 13.25 crores and it was issued by L.N. Agarwal of complainant company. To clear the same, a cheque for Rs.6.28 crores purportedly drawn by the complainant company in favour of A.1 company, being the difference amount has been deposited for collection. It is further stated that the unused signed blank cheques were given to A.2 and A.3 only for the purpose of making payment to third parties in respect of business transactions of Mahaboobnagar unit as well as Tirupur sales depot. The said cheques were issued on the endorsement made by A.2 and A.3 that they would not misuse the same. The bank statement shows that series of cheques bearing Nos.444850 (sic 444840) to 444850 were issued on 4-6-2002. The subject cheques bearing Nos.444840, 444841 and 444842 were misused by the accused form one part of the cheque book. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the understanding entered into between A.2 and L.N. Agarwal on 1-10-2004, the complainant issued cheque for Rs.13.25 crores for institutional liability and arising out of the same personal understanding, another cheque was given for Rs.6.28 crores; that in order to pre-empt dishonour of the cheque, the present complaint is lodged; that there are no ingredients of inducement on the part of the petitioners in insisting the complainant to give the cheques; hence, he prayed to quash the impugned proceedings. The learned Counsel relied on some decisions which will be referred to at appropriate time.