G SREE KUMAR Vs. SRI TUSHAR BHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short, the Code, the Petitioner, who was one amongst eight accused in CR Case No. 42/01 pending in the case of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dimapur, Nagaland, prays for quashing of the said proceeding in C.R. Case No. 42/01.

(2.) On the basis of the complaint filed by one Sri Tushar Bhadra, the learned trial court, being satisfied after perusal of the complaint petition and examination of the complainant, took cognizance under Section 406/420/34 IPC by an order dated 18.10.01. In the complaint, the complainant made M/s Leafin India Ltd., a non-Banking Finance Company incorporated on 27.3.86 and having 36 branches, as accused No. 1, represented by the Managing Director of the company. The accused No. 1 is in the business of leasing and hire -purchase of consumer durables. The accused No. 2 in the complaint was the Managing Director of the company. The accused Nos 3 to 7 were the directors and the present Petitioner who was the financial controller of the company was arrayed as accused No. 8. In the complaint petition, the complainant stated that accused No. 1 through the other accused persons released attractive advertisements containing false and incorrect credit ratings during the period 1997 to 1999 to invite short term deposits from the public and in the process collected about Rs. 14 crores all over India, out of which, Rs. 4 crores were generated from the State of Nagaland. After collecting the deposits, the accused persons diverted the funds to benami companies such as Guruveyoor Holdings Ltd, M/s Athigiri Investment Pvt. Ltd and R.C. Holdings Ltd., all registered with the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, in which accused No. 2 was the director and authorized signatory, and thereby, misappropriated the deposits. 7,22,174 shares were purchased in Guruveyoor Holdings Ltd. in the year 1997 and valuable properties were acquired in the first and ground floor of a flat measuring about 1790 sq. ft. in each floor at Secunderabad, which came to be sold by accused No. 2 on 23.8.99 by under valuing them, for Rs. 11,70,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- to accused No. 8 and his father, respectively. According to the complainant, the value of the properties transferred would be Rs. 60,00,000/-. It is further alleged that the accused No. 1 circulated a fabricated Audit Report dated 1.10.98 and the accused had connived with each other in the aforementioned acts and therefore, the accused are liable to be punished under Section 406/420/34 IPC. Lastly, it is stated that the accused left abandoning their office without making re-payment of the sum of the depositors, including that of the complainant.

(3.) I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None appears for the opposite party/complainant. The order dated 30.11.10 would indicate that while on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the sole opposite party made a submission that he had instructions not to pursue this revision.