ASHOK KUMAR GROVER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code"), for quashing F. I. R. No. 366, dated May 2, 1994, registered at Police Station, City Fatehabad, for the offences under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and further proceedings in consequence thereof.

(2.) THE facts which can be gathered from the record and necessary for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner secured a cash credit limit to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000 on October 19, 1994, from Punjab National Bank, Fatehabad, repayment of which was guaranteed by one Shri Sant Lal Mehta. The petitioner hypothecated the entire stock belonging to him which was then available with him and which, thereafter, from time to time during the continuance of the agreement would be brought in or stored in or about the premises or godowns of the premises or in transit or wherever the same may be. To secure the repayment of the amount due, the petitioner also created an equitable mortgage in respect of his immovable property in favour of the said bank. This facility was availed of some time up to December, 1992. A sum of Rs. 3,55,456 became due and payable by the petitioner and his guarantor towards principal and interest as on August 17, 1993. After serving a legal notice, the said bank filed a civil suit for the recovery of the said amount and also for enforcing the recovery thereof by the sale of the mortgaged property under Order 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, in the Civil Court at Fatehabad, which suit is admittedly pending till today.

(3.) NOTICE of motion was given to the respondent-State. In reply, it has been stated that after investigation a charge-sheet has been submitted to the court, that the petition is bad for non-joinder of Punjab National Bank, a necessary party, and that after investigation a prima facie case under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was made out against the petitioner. It has been further stated that the petitioner dishonestly disposed of the hypothecated goods without paying the proceeds to the bank and has misappropriated the same and the intention of the petitioner was only to cheat the bank from the very beginning. It is thus stated that the present petition is, in itself, an abuse of the process of the court.