MALLIKA SRINIVASAN Vs. MANI PRAKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the petitions are arising out of the same dispute between the same parties, M/s. Mani Agro Industries Station Road, Datia, respondent No. 1 /complainant represented through its proprietor Mani Prakash Sharma at one side (complainant in short) and the petitioners being office bearers of M/s. Eicher Ltd. Industrial Area Mandideep, Bhopal at the other side (hereinafter petitioners will be referred to as accused and M/s. Eicher Ltd. as company), hence both have been heard and are being disposed of together.

(2.) THE facts in brief, as revealed from complaint dated 31.7.2006 filed by the complainant against Smt. Mallika Srinivasan, MD, Rajiv Sharma, Regional Manager, Sunil Panel and Samir Garg, Area Managers of the company are, that complainant, a proprietor firm was appointed as dealer by the company in May 1999 on depositing Rs. two lacs as security amount. The terms of the agreement included, complainant was to receive old tractors from the customers and sell the new tractors to them for which an incentive was to be paid by the company. In order to complete fix target company was billing the tractors in the months of March every year in the name of the complainant without actual delivery thereof. The amount was adjusted in the account of the complainant thereafter. The complainant was to purchase spare parts from Yashdeep Enterprises, a distributor of the company. The cost price was being paid by the complainant through cheques. However, the company was also charging the cost price directly from the complainant, but the same was credited subsequently in the account of the complainant. As per the accounts maintained by the complainant Rs. 16,70,386.45 excluding Rs. two lacs as security amount were due on the company. Despite demands the same was not paid. The company was obtaining blank cheques from the complainant for purchase of Hundis in order to raise funds for its business and the said amount was to be credited in the account of the complainant. For the purpose, on 23.9.2002 accused Samir Garg, the Area Manager of the company, received two blank cheques Nos. 533554 and 533555 from the complainant for raising the amount on Hundis, but no such amount was raised on those cheques. When the said cheques were demanded back by the complainant, he was informed by accused Samir Garg that the same have been lost. It was assured by the accused persons, that if those cheques are found, they will not be used. On this assurance the complainant did not take any step.

(3.) COUNTERING the contentions Mr. Raja Sharma, the learned Advocate for respondent/complainant has submitted that both the cases based on FIR and on complaint are based on different allegations and facts. According to him, FIR is based on the allegation that the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant filled the amount in the cheque, forged his signatures and submitted in the Bank. While the case of complaint is based on an amount entrusted to the accused persons in the shape of various incentives and commissions arising out of the sale of tractors and amount of Rs. 15 lacs, which was entrusted to the petitioners at the time of starting of business. He has further submitted that the blank cheques, which were handed over to the company were not signed by the complainant. At the time of filling of the amount in the cheque, the accused persons have forged the signatures of the complainant on that cheque. He has also submitted that neither the complainant has received any notice under Section 138 of the Act before initiation of the complaint against him nor he has confirmed the balance of Rs. 34.79 lacs as outstanding. This document of confirmation is forged. According to the complainant for the sake of arguments, the contentions of the company and the accused persons are admitted to be true, although when are not to be true as per the complainant, then in that case how the complainant will hand over a cheque of Rs. 86 lacs to the company when according to the company itself he is admitting or confirming the balance of Rs. 34.79 lacs only. An amount more than Rs. 18.5. lacs is due on the company. Just to avoid this liability, the cheque has been forged for the purpose of cheating the company.