SANTOSH KUMAR BHUWANIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prashant Kumar,J. This writ application has been filed for quashing the First Information Report of Govindpur P.S.case no. 112 of 2015, corresponding to G. R. no. 1317/2015 registered under sections 420, 406 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It appears that the complainant/respondent no.2 filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad vide C.P. Case no. 336/2015. The said complaint case sent to the Govindpur Police Station for institution of case and investigation under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Accordingly, Govindpur P.S. case no. 112/2015 instituted. In the said complaint petition, respondent no.2 alleged that petitioners are directors and promoters of M/s Anirox Pigments Limited and they are related to the complainant ( respondent no.2). It is also stated that petitioner no.1 and 2 are also Directors of M/s Elementies Coke Private Limited. It is alleged that in the year 2004-05, petitioners invited respondent no.2 and his father namely,Late Ganesh Ram Dokania in their factory premises for some important discussions relating to their business. It is stated that in response to the aforesaid invitation, respondent no.2 and his father went to the petitioners' residence at Amaghata, Govindpur, where petitioners requested respondent no.2 and his father for help in their business, as the petitioners' company namely, M/s Anirox Pigments Ltd. was facing serious financial crisis . It is also requested that if respondent no.2 and his father will invest money in the company, they will earn a handsome profit. It is further alleged that on the said persuasion, the respondent no.2 and his father invested crores of rupees in the petitioners' company as creditor, but the petitioners had shown the above investment as purchasers of shares. It is further stated that the petitioners appointed the respondent no.2 and his father as Directors of the Company. However, within five months respondent no.2 and his father resigned from the Directorship.

(3.) It is stated that later on respondent no.2 and his father found that the Company was facing serious financial crisis, therefore, they asked the accused/petitioners to return their money. It is stated that in lieu of said demand, the accused-petitioners had executed three promissory notes on 27.09.2005, 02.06.2008 and 03.06.2008 in favour of respondent no.2 and his father for total sum of Rs.22,25,00,000/-. It is stated that thereafter, accused/petitioners received crores of rupees on many occasions, but instead of paying a single penny to respondent no.2 and his father, they only gave assurances to pay back the dues within a short period.