RAJARAM GUPTA Vs. DHARAMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks interference with the order of the Second Additional Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Criminal Revision No 38 for 1978, quashing the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mandsaur in Criminal Case No. 844 of 1977 of 6-31978 discharging the accused-petitioners (and others of offences punishable under Secs. 120-B, 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, and remanding the case to the trial Court (the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur) for disposal of the case according to law and directing the Magistrate to possibly frame a charge under Section 409 Indian Penal Code also, if so made out after the evidence for the prosecution.

(2.) THE Gwalior Maize products Ltd. Mandsaur was a registered company under the then Gwalior Companies Act and is deemed to be registered under the Indian Companies Act with its registered office at Mandsaur. It appears that the respondent No, 1 Dharamchand on his own behalf and on behalf of respondent No. 2 Bapulal on 12-3-1977 preferred a complaint against the accused-petitioners of whom the petitioner No. 1 Rajaram Gupta is the father and co-petitioner 2, 3 and 4, his sons, and three others including one Madanlal (since dead) and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 -Jagdishsingh and Fatehsingh before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, complaining that Madanlal being the trustee and Jagdish Singh and Fatehsingh being the trustees of the debenture holders were entrusted with the property of the company on 27-81954. They with a view to causing loss to the share-holders, of the association of whom he is the president, conspiring with the accused-petitioners sold the property of the company for Rs. 7 1/2 lacs when in fact it was worth about Rs. 70 lacs. As a result of conspiracy the accused-respondent Fatehsingh even brought a civil suit (No. 11-A of 1967) in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mandsaur against the accused one Madanlal and the accused-respondent Jaadishsingh for preventing them from committing waste of the property, and continuing to act as trustees; but on 14-12-1967 the accused Fatehsingh (respondent No. 4} got the suit dismissed and on the same day without giving any notice of the agenda of the company passed resolution illegally and secretly as a result of which the property of the company came to be sold by Madanlal, Jagdishsingh and Fatehsingh (respondents 2 and 31 to the three sons of the petitioner No. 1 Raiaram Gupta. He, therefore, prayed that the accused be proceeded against for offences punishable under Sections 107, 120-B, 406 and 420 Indian Penal; but earlier to it also he had preferred a similar complaint which had come to be dismissed on 9-2-1977 because of his absence.

(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate instead of proceeding under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code straightway called a report of investigation from the Police Mandsaur and on finding that the Police had put up a final report after examining the complainant and his witnesses on oath registered a case under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 and 107 Indian Penal Code on 27-4-1977. He consequently summoned the accused persons before him. The matter kept on lingering before him for one reason or the other during the course of which the accused one Madanlal died (resulting in the abatement of proceedings against him ). Ultimately after hearing the complainant and the accused persons he by his order of 6-3-1978 purporting to act under Section 245 (2) Criminal Procedure Code, discharged the accused of the offences for which they had been summoned earlier.