LAWS(P&H)-2024-3-41

UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 22, 2024
UNITED BANK OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, as instituted under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner No.1-Bank, which is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and, the petitioner No.2, who is Deputy General Manager of the petitioner No.1- Bank, yearn for grant of the hereinafter extracted relief(s):-

(2.) Owing to dishonour of cheque(s), which was issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Lakhani India Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'accused firm"), in lieu of his firm's outstanding liability, the petitioner No.1, through petitioner No.2, i.e. its then Chief Manager, instituted a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act') against the firm (supra). In the complaint (supra), apart from other Directors of the accused firm, the respondents No.2 and 3 herein were also arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 5, in the capacity of Directors of the accused firm. Moreover, in support of the complaint (supra), the petitioner No.2, i.e. the then Chief Manager of the petitioner No.1 furnished an affidavit in preliminary evidence.

(3.) During pendency of the complaint (supra), the respondents No.2 and 3 herein moved an application under Sec. 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court concerned, thereby seeking prosecution of the present petitioners under Ss. 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200 and 420 of the IPC. What triggered the respondents concerned to make the application (supra), was that, despite the petitioners being well acquainted with their designation/status in the accused firm, i.e. 'Independent Non-Executive Directors', yet they were deliberately arrayed as accused in the complaint (supra) in the capacity of Directors, on the allegations that, they along with other Directors, used to accept and undertake to make the payment of proceeds to the petitioner-Bank. The respondents further averred in their application (supra) that they had neither executed any security document in favour of the petitioner-Bank, nor had given any undertaking to make payment to it, however, despite that, the petitioner No.2 furnished a false affidavit carrying the hereinafter extracted incorrect averments, in support of the complaint (supra):-