SRI KRISHNA KUMAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three cases are taken up together as the parties in all these three cases are common and arise out of common transaction whereby the complainant-opposite party no. 2 had lent money to the accused company and its Managing Director.

(2.) Through Criminal Misc. No. 41948 of 2005, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 27.7.2005 passed in Complaint Case No. 2057(m) of 2005 whereunder the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 420/406/409 I.PC. and 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Through Criminal Misc. No. 41952 of 2005, the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 16.6.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1540(M) of 2005 wherein cognizance has been taken under similar offence and through Criminal Misc. No. 41953 of 2005 the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 2108(M) of 2005 whereby cognizance has been taken for similar offence.

(3.) The brief facts of all these three cases may be culled out from the records of Criminal Misc. No. 41948 of 2005. The complainant, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Limited is a registered Company under the Companies Act, a Government of Bihar undertaking and being a financial institution of the Government of Bihar is engaged mainly in providing financial aids and assistance to promote, establish and set up of small, medium and large industries in the State of Bihar and Jharkhand in a bid to make the programme and policy adopted by the Government of Bihar in the matter of industrial revolution a success. It has been empowered by various Sections of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The accused no.1, M/s Patna Poisons (Private) Limited is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and as such is a legal person and accused no. 2, Krishna Kumar Yadav is the Managing Director/ promotor/ guarantor of the said Company (accused no. 1) and all activities of the Company are carried out by its Promotor/Director for their gains. It is said that M/s Patna Polsan Model Dairy was engaged in manufacture of salted butter and caseni etc. and for the purpose of setting up of a Patna Polsan Model Dairy at Digha the new management proposed to increase the capacity of Butter and Ghee and with that aim in view the accused persons approached the complainant Company for financial assistance and applied for the same in the prescribed form. It is further said that the complainant Corporation after due inquiry and completion of formalities sanctioned term loan to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs to the accused Company and in pursuance thereof the accused persons executed various agreements in respect of term loan and its repayment. However, the accused persons wilfully neglected in making repayment of its loan and interest thereon and it is said that the dues against the accused persons was to the extent of Rs. 76517475.00 calculated on 31.3.2004 and further interest accrued thereupon whereafter the complainant issued several letters and notices demanding repayment of the loan amount but all its effort proved futile. It is further said that subsequently the complainant Corporation announced/advertised its One Time Settlement Scheme (Hereinafter referred to as O.T.S.) and requested the accused to settle their dues under the said Scheme vide its letter No. 1841 dated 7.11.2004 and in response to the said letter the accused persons approached the complainant Corporation and submitted three post dated cheques towards the payment of dues/ liabilities. The details whereof are as follows: Cheque No. 094682 dated 30.4.2005 for Rs. 5,00,000.00, Cheque No. 094684 dated 15.6.2005 for Rs. 5,00,000.00 and Cheque No. 094685 dated 30.6.2005 for Rs. 6,32,936.00. All these cheques were drawn on UCO Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna. When the cheques were presented for clearance by the complainant through its Bankers, Corporation Bank they were dishonoured with the endorsement "Not Arranged for". Accordingly for dishonour of cheque no. 094682, the complainant Corporation sent a legal notice on 9.5.2005, for dishonour of cheque no. 094684, the Corporation sent legal notice dated 22.6.2005 and for dishonour of cheque no. 094685 the Corporation sent legal notice dated 7.7.2005 to the accused persons under the N.I. Act and also informed them personally but no heed was paid by the accused persons to pay the amount covered under the said bounced cheques within stipulated time. On the aforesaid ground, it was submitted that the accused persons had given the cheques to the complainant Corporation with unfair intention and with specific intention to cheat the complainant Corporation and by the said action the complainant Corporation has been put to wrongful loss and the accused persons have put themselves to wrongful gain. It was also submitted that the action of the accused persons reflected mala fide and criminal conspiracy so as to defraud and cheat the complainant.