KISHAN MEHROTRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 28.4.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 2457(c) of 2002 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

(2.) The Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) filed complaint Case No. 2457(c) of 2002 on 29.11.2002 against M/s. Sunil Polyplast Ltd. and its Managing Director and Executive Director, namely, S.K Mehrotra and Kishan Mehrotra. It is stated in the complaint petition that accused No. 1 Sunil Polyplast Ltd. is a Public Limited Company and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are Managing Director, and Executive Director of the company. The accused persons approached the complainant for a term loan and the complainant sanctioned Rs. 90 lacs in favour of the company in the year 1989. Since then accused persons wilfully neglected and failed to pay the amount and the interest thereon, amounting to Rs. 2,95,39,112 as on 30.9.2002. Complainant took legal action under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 and also under the Public Demand Recovery Act for realisation of its dues. Subsequent to the initiation of the said recovery proceedings the company submitted a cheque of Rs. 1,28,42,000/- to the complainant followed by five cheques of Rs. 1 lac each towards the aforesaid dues. Out of these cheques, three cheques were presented for payment before the Bank which were dishonoured. The details of the cheques presented for payment arc as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_122_BC1_2005Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the accused No. 1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but in spile of receipt of notice the accused person did not pay the loan in question. It is stated in the complaint petition that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the Director and Promoter of the company and the entire activities of the company are carried out and controlled by them for their gain. It is alleged that the accused persons acting in conspiracy have cheated the complainant and committed breach of trust and misappropriation of public money and, as such, guilty of offence under Sections 120-B. 420, 406 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.