VXL INDIA LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.R. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appears on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 2.

(2.) In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance, dated 8.9.1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in complaint case No. 264/94 under Section 420, IPC and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of the said case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(3.) In the complaint petition, the complainant has impleaded the petitioners who are the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Marketing Manager, as accused persons. It is alleged, inter alia, that the complainant submitted an application to petitioner No. 1 for opening a Digjam show room. It was alleged that offer made was lucrative as it had been offered an interest free loan of rupees five lacs for renovation of the shop on furnishing security of Rs. 25,000/-. Various other promises were made by the petitioner-Company. It was alleged that the premises offered by the complainant was a rented premises in which the father of the complainant was running a different business and he had to shift elsewhere for which the complainant had agreed to pay Rs. 4 lacs to his father. It is alleged that a written agreement was presented before the complainant for signing the same but on finding that the complainant was asked to furnish post dated cheques of the amount equal to the amount of loan which, on objection by the complainant was subsequently deleted and a fresh agreement was sent to him for signing and the complainant after signing the said agreement, started show room by investing substantial amount. It is further alleged that the complainant offered A/C cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- against interest free loan of Rs. 5,00,000. Another cheque was offered by way of another instalment. However, the complainant is alleged to have received only rupees three lacs out of five lacs and suddenly the payment was stopped. According to the complainant, therefore, he was deceived by the petitioners, who had induced him to enter into an agreement and to take loan. On the basis of the said allegation the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.