VIJAYANDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This petition for quashing FIR No. 125/98 u/S. 120-B read with S. 420, IPC, qua all the petitioners, has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/S. 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that Mr. Surendra Singla, presently arrayed as respondent No. 2, lodged a written report against the accused-petitioners as well as Satish Singhal s/o Shri Malook Chand Agarwal at the Police Station, Kotwali, Sriganganagar on 28-4-1998. The complainant-respondent is a partner of the firm Raj Shree Cotton Company, Sriganganagar working as a broker as well as a dealer in the sale and purchase of cotton. All the petitioners are Directors of R.P. Texfab Ltd., Modinagar who purchased cotton through the said firm of Ganganagar for that company from time to time. Lastly, a sum of Rs. 47,28,115.80 stood in the credit balance of the Ganganagar firm owned by the said company of the accused persons. The accused persons, without taking into confidence the complainant, at his back, entered into an agreement for transfer of management, assets and liabilities of their company in favour of Satish Singhal, Bharat Bhusan and Anil Gupta who were placed as new Directors of the said R.P. Texfab Ltd. Company. On 27-2-95, the accused persons summoned the complainant at Modinagar and they held a joint meeting in presence of Surendra Singla in the campus of the Company at Modinagar. All these accused persons, for the first time, informed the complainant that the management of the company was so transferred to Mr. Satish Singhal and his associates and the liabilities as well as the assets of the company were also simultaneously transferred to Mr. Satish Singhal and his associates, therefore, the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 47,28,115.80 shall be paid by the new management of the Company to which the complainant did not agree and insisted upon payment and clearance of the outstanding liabilities by the old management of the Company including the accused-petitioners but, however, all the aforesaid accused persons present in the meeting, gave an assurance that the Directors of the new company, including Mr. Satish Singhal, would pay a part of the outstanding amount by delivery of Bank drafts while rest of the amount shall be adjusted by delivery of thread and, for the balance, if any, the payment shall be arranged by Mr. Satish Singhal and his associates taking over management of the company. The complainant was still not agreeable and he sought sometime for thinking over the matter and to convey his consent to the aforesaid purchasers. However, on 28-2-1998 itself, all the accused persons, accompanied by Satish Singhal, rushed up to Sriganganagar whereat the complainant is residing and carrying on his business and insisted upon the complainant that they should agree to the aforesaid proposals whereby all the accused persons and so also as agreed to and assured by Satish Singhal, they were ready to deliver Bank drafts of Rs. 10 lacs and some quantity of thread was ready for delivery which would be delivered at the instance and on the order of the complainant while, for the balance amount, Satish Singhal was ready to issue post-dated cheques with an assurance to honour the same on the due dates of the payment. On the assurance of all the accused persons so given and assuming that since Satish Singhal was assured to be a reputed and a person of sound finances and hence, believing the statement of timely payments in the aforesaid manner given by the accused persons, he accepted the Bank draft of Rs. 10 lacs. Besides, thread valuing at Rs. 13,26,560/- was offered to be delivered as ordered to by the complainant. For the balance amount of Rs. 23 lacs, four post dated cheques for 25-3-1998, 12-4-1998, 30-4-1998 and 30-4-98 for Rs. 5 lacs, 5 lacs, 5 lacs and 8 lacs respectively drawn on the Union Bank of India, Noida, were simultaneously delivered to the complainant with a specific assurance and undertaking by all the accused persons that the post-dated cheques so issued, shall be honoured on the respective dates on their presentment by the Bank. This assurance led the complainant to accept the documents. Similarly, on the aforesaid assurances, the complainant was made to sign an agreement whereby he agreed to receive payment and the goods as stated above from Satish Singhal instead of the accused petitioners. However, the cheques, on their presentation, due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer and stoppage of payments, were not honoured and on receipt of information of the dishonour on the ground that the payment of cheques were ordered to be stopped by Mr. Anil Gupta and Associates lodging the aforesaid written report, it was further alleged that all the assurances as well as the conduct exhibited by the accused persons conjointly on 27-2-1998 and, lastly, on 28-2-98 at Sriganganagar, made the complainant to believe that the assurance was bona fide and the cheques would be honoured on their presentment to the concerned branch of the Bank but, fraudulently, the payments were stopped. On this complaint, the aforesaid FIR was registered and investigation commenced which is yet pending.

(3.) This petition is also being seriously contested on behalf of respondent No. 2 Surendra Singla who has also filed a rejoinder.