JAY PRAKASH GAUR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. prayer is made by the petitioner for quashing of a proceeding being case No. C-543 of 1999 under Section 420/471 of the I. P. C. pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta so far as it relates to him. The O. P. No. 2, the Director of M/s. 21st Century Security Ltd, lodged a complaint against M/s. Sequence Estates Pvt. Ltd. (accused No. 1), and two Directors accused Nos. 2 and 3 and three others i. e. accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Accused No. 2 is the husband of the accused No. 3, while accused No. 4 is the father of accused No. 2 and father-in-law of the accused No. 3. Accused No. 5 is a Finance Broker who introduced accused No. 2 allegedly to the complainant and one Mahendra Kumar Jalari. Accused No. 6 is the father-in-law of accused No. 2 and father of the accused No. 3 and also is Chairman cum Managing Director of a company called Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. This accused No. 6 is the petitioner herein.

(2.) ACCUSED Nos. 2, 4 and 5 represented to the complainant and one Mahendra Kumar Jalan that accused No. 4 Mr. R. K. Dikshit, the father of accused No. 2 was a wealthy person having very high reputation in society and that accused No. 6 was a front ranking industrialist in the country. Accused No. 5 who introduced the accused No. 2 to the complainant represented that accused Nos. 2 and 3 were desperately in need of money for setting up their factory in the name and style of Rashiva International Ltd. and they were holding 32 lac equity shares of Rs. 10 each of Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. valued at about Rs. 256 crores and the said shares had stood registered in the name of the accused No. 1 who requested the complainant/ company to arrange for finance for accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for Rs. 1 crore against security of the aforesaid 32 lac equity shares of Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. The accused No. 5 further falsely represented that the loan would be repaid with interest at the rate of 30% p. a. within 90 days from the date of receipt of the money. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 knew from the very beginning that they would not repay the said sum or any part thereof but even then the accused Nos. 2 to 5 continued to make false representations to cheat the complainant and Sri Mahendra Kumar Jalan. Accused No. 2 in course of discussion held over telephone told that he had talked with the present petitioner, accused No. 6, to the effect that the accused No. 6 had approved of the proposal of the accused No. 2 in the matter of pledgement of 32 lac shares of Joy Prakash Industries for the purpose of securing a loan of Rs. 1 crore. Being induced by false and fraudulent representation of the accused Nos. 2 to 5 the complainant agreed to advance a loan of Rs. 1 crore only to the accused No. 1. Thus, the complainant and Mahendra Kumar Jalan have been cheated in respect of Rs. 37. 5 lac which was paid to the accused No. 1/company by cheque No. 259032 dated 26. 9. 1998 drawn on Bank of America, New Delhi Branch. On the said date the accused No. 2 along with accused No. 5 came to the office of the company of the complainant and the accused No. 2 delivered 16 lac equity shares claiming the same to be the genuine arid original share with the scripts of Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. bearing distinctive numbers as mentioned in paragraph 8 of the complaint and pledged those shares with the company of the complainant at their Corporate Office at No. 2, Clive Ghat Street, Calcutta. The cheque for Rs. 37. 5 lac was received by the accused No. 2 in presence of the accused No. 5 and deposited the said cheque with the bank account of the accused No. 1 on 30. 9. 1998 and the said cheque was encashed on that date itself. Acknowledgement of the cheque was granted by the accused No. 2. On 28. 9. 1998 the complainant/company by another cheque paid a further sum of Rs. 37. 5 lac favouring accused No. 1 and handed over the same to the accused No. 2. With a view to create confidence that the loan money thus received would be promptly repaid which the accused persons knew from the beginning that the same would never be repaid and with a view to cheat the complainant the accused persons executed few documents including a letter of request, a promissory note, a letter of continuity and affidavit of accused No. 2. along with post dated cheques for repayment of the loan as also a Deed of Pledge. Simultaneously, accused No. 2 in the presence of the accused No. 1 physically handed over the second lot of 16 lacs equity share scripts claiming to be the original and genuine share scripts of Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 falsely represented that they would redeem the pledged shares within 90 days from the date of receipt of the amount of depository loan on repayment of the said sum of money together with interest to be calculated at 30% of the principal. On 10. 11. 1998 the complainant company paid a further sum of Rs. 25 lacs by cheque No. 259041 drawn on Bank of America, New Delhi Branch in favour of the accused No. 1 and handed over the same to the accused No. 2 in presence of the accused No. 1 and on that day itself the cheque was encashed. Thus, the complainant company paid a total sum of rs. 1 crore. It is alleged that accused No. 4 gave false assurance with a view to deceive and cheat the complainant by falsely assuring the complainant of payment. Accused No. 1/company through accused No. 2 purportedly wrote a letter to Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. on 28-09-1998 and pretended to request them to record in their registers that the aforesaid shares had been pledged with the said complainant/company and requested Joy Prakash Industries to confirm that such pledge was noted knowing that the said Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. would not really confirm the transaction. Accused No. 2 procured a letter dated 7. 10. 1998 purported to be written by Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. whereby Joy Prakash Industries Ltd. was presumed to have confirmed to the complainant/company of their having recorded the pledge by accused No. 1 of the aforesaid shares but Joy Prakash Industries denied to have written any such letter dated 07-10-1998. Thus, with a view to support false claim of accused Nos. 1 to 5 accused No. 6 procured from Joy Prakash Industries false document i. e. denial of the fact that they had written the letter dated 07-10-1998, and that all the shares scripts were not of Joy Prakash Industries. Criminal conspiracy was hatched by and between the accused persons and in pursuance of the conspiracy the accused persons used some forged share scripts and a false and forged letter of Joy Prakash Industries dated 7. 10. 1998 to cheat the complainant, Mahendra Kumar Jalan and induced them to pay Rs. 1 crore which they would never have paid if they had known that all representations were false and fraudulent.

(3.) OFFENCES were alleged to have been committed thus under Section 420/465/467/468/471/120b of the I. P. C.