LALAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 28-3-2003 passed by S. D. J. M. Koderma in complaint Case No. 60 of 2003.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of this application are that O. P. No.2 complainant filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma alleging inter alia therein that her husband late Jagdish Lal Chhabra and petitioner Lalan Prasad were running a company under the name and style of M/s. Super Steel Casting Ltd. as Directors of the Company along with other directors. But due to some mala fide intention, accused petitioner became hostile to the interest of the company and it appeared to her husband that accused was committing a lot of financial irregularities including defalcation in running of the business and its assets and its income. Her husband approached the petitioner many times and put pressure on him for accounting of the business but her husband was persuaded to come to Head Corporate Office situated in Patna on 1-4-2002 where the petitioner adopted violent attitude causing mental torture to her husband and got the door closed and pressurized her husband to sign certain papers or face grave consequences and thereafter her husband put signatures on some papers. Further case of O. P. No. 2- complainant is that due to the attitude of the petitioner, her husband went under high depression and subsequently died. Two days after the demise of her husband, on 10-4-2002 a meeting in presence of two arbitrators along with the directors of the Company was held in which petitioner as well as heir of late Jagdish Lal Chhabra also participated and thereafter Award was passed. Under the terms of Award, the petitioner had to get released the collateral security and hand over the title Deeds of the property kept as collateral security standing in the name of Jagdish Lal Chhabra and his family, kept in Punjab National Bank, S. S. I. Branch, Patna for taking loan in the name and in favour of M/s. Super Steel Casting Ltd. by 10-8-2002 and on failure of the accused to do so within the stipulated period, the accused will be liable to pay Rs. 55 lakhs to the complainant - O. P. No. 2. The petitioner issued post dated cheque No. 9115 dated 10-8-2002 for Rs. 55 lakhs drawn on Central Bank of India, Chiraiya Tand Branch, Patna in favour of the complainant, but when petitioner did not comply with the terms of the said Arbitration Award on or before 10-8-2002, the aforesaid cheque was presented for collection at complainant's Bank, Union Bank of India, Jhumritalaiya Branch on 4-9-2002 but the cheque was dishonoured by the Central Bank of India, Chiraiya Tand Branch, Patna which was presented in Central Bank of India, Chiraiya Tand Branch, Patna on 17-10-2002 for encashment but cheque was dishonoured by the petitioners Bank Central Bank of India, Chiraiya Tand Branch, Patna on the ground that payment stopped by the drawer, but there was not sufficient fund in the Bank Account of the petitioner. The O. P. No. 2-complainant was intimated by her Bank, Union Bank of India, Jhumritalaiya Branch on 20-11-2002. Further, complainant sent a notice through registered post to the petitioner through her lawyer Sheo Shankar Prasad, Advocate on 3-12-2002 demanding the payment of the said cheque as per provisions of Section 138 N. I. Act, 1881, but the petitioner got registered notice delayed and it was returned with endorsement 'not met', although it is stated that the petitioner was all through present on the address. After return of the notice, Deepak Chhabra, son of the complainant, met petitioner and told about the dishonour of the cheque and asked to pay the cheque amount but the petitioner promised that the cheque would be honoured by 2nd of January 2003 on presentation. The petitioner made a telephonic call to the complainant, but when it was again presented on 6-1-2003, the same was again dishonoured with a memo 'payment stopped by the drawer'. Although petitioner had no sufficient fund in the bank. Thereafter O. P. No.2 complainant sent a notice through registered post through her lawyer Sri Ganesh, Advocate on 15-1-2003 for payment of the said cheque amount and petitioner received notice on 20-1-2003 but paid nothing till the date of filing of this complaint case. There was no sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner-accused on the date and so the accused knowingly and deliberately directed the Bank to stop payment of the cheque and, therefore, O. P. No.2- complainant filed a case under Section 138 N. I. Act. Further case of the O. P. No. 2 complainant is that as per decision of the arbitration, petitioner has to pay Rs.35 lakhs for the transfer of shares of the complainant, her husband and her sons. The complainant and her sons transferred their shares in the Company M/s. Super Steel Casting Ltd. to the accused person Lalan Prasad but the accused person paid only Rs.13,50,000/- (rupees thirteen lakhs and fifty thousand) and assured to pay later on but the petitioner accused became dishonest and not paid the rest amount of Rs. 21,50,000/- (rupees twenty one lakh and fifty thousand) and in spite of several requests, he committed offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant appeared and submitted that after due inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P. C., cognizance in the case has been taken and this quashing application is not maintainable at all. It was further pointed out that it cannot be said that there was no existing debt or liability and these are matters which should be considered at the stage of trial. It was further pointed out that complainant has got no knowledge about complaint case No. 16 of 2003.