PRADIP KUMAR SARAWAGI Vs. DIPTI GOGOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the help of this application, made under Section 482 Cr.PC., the two petitioners have put to challenge the order, dated 27.02.2004, passed, in Complaint Case No.514C/2004, by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Kamrup, Guwahati, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 406, read with Section 34 IPC and directing issuance of summons to the accused -petitioners.

(2.) NONE has appeared for the parties concerned, though the matter has been called twice.

(3.) THE case of the complainant, as can be discerned from the complaint, in question, is, in brief, thus: The accused -petitioners had, at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati, their business establishment dealing with Bell Metal scrap with accused No. 1 as Managing Director of the said business establishment, which was run under the name of style of M/s B. R. Metals Limited, and the accused -petitioner No. 2 is one of the Directors of M/s B. R. Metals Limited. The accused -petitioners used to receive money from other businessmen and individuals, on interest, at the rate of 12% per annum. On 12.09.98, accused No. 1 received a sum of rupees two lakhs from the complainant, on loan, by way of cheque No.61704, dated 12.09.98, of the State Bank of India, Bharalumukh Branch. Yet another sum of Rs.4,40,000/ - was received, as loan, by the accused -petitioner No. 1 from the complainant by way of cheque No.617048, dated 24.09.98, of the State Bank of India, Bharalumukh Branch. The said total sum of Rs.6,40,000/ - had been received by the accused -petitioners by making promises to pay interest @ 12% per annum and, in this regard, accused No. 1 had issued acknowledgement as regards receipt of the cheques, which had been encashed from the Bank aforementioned. The accusedpetitioners, however, withdrew their business from Guwahati and shifted to Gurgaon, Haryana, leaving a skeleton business establishment at their original place of business at Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. Though several attempts were made by the complainant to contact the accused - petitioners, there was no success. The accused -petitioners have, thus, ceased to have any contact with the complainant.