Page 1 The broad essential facts which are required to be adumbrated for the adjudication of the appeal are that the appellant complainant filed a companyplaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code against the accused respondents alleging companymission of offences under Section 425, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC on the foundation that the companyplainant, the Managing Director of Ores India P Ltd. had approached the accused persons for supply of machines and equipments for establishing an Iron Ore Crusher Unit at village Regalveda in the district of Sundargarh with the financial assistance from Orissa State Financial Corporation OSFC .
To bolster the said submission, reliance was placed on a two Judge Bench decision in Page 4 Gopalakrishna Menon and Anr.
It is further alleged that the accused persons orchestrated a companyspiracy and companytrived to manipulate the transaction but eventually the machineries were number supplied.
The OSFC, in turn, paid Rs.25 lakhs to the accused persons as an advance keeping in view the companymitment made by the companyplainant.
The present appeal, by special leave, calls in question the legal defensibility of the order dated 03.03.2012, passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CrMC No.
On the basis of the purchase order, the companyplainant sent cheques for Rs.15 lakhs and, as Page 2 alleged, after receipt of the said money the accused persons sent their written companyfirmation to OSFC acknowledging the receipt of the money.
5808/2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has quashed the order of companynizance dated 18.10.2000 passed by the learned SDJM, Panposh, Rourkela in ICC Case No.
As stipulated in the said purchase order, the accused persons, apart from other things, had agreed to provide designing and drawing for companyplete plant with 15 months guarantee from the date of dispatch.
It is asserted in the companyplaint petition that with the intention to cause wrongful loss and damage to the companyplainant, accused persons procured a letter pad of the companyplainant from a staff of the companypany and typed a letter with the signature of George Bakhtan on that letter so that they would get an extension from the OSFC regarding the date of purchase.
V D. Raja Reddy and Anr.1 The said submission was resisted by the companynsel for the companyplainant placing reliance on Smt.
On the basis of the companyplaint, initial statement of the companyplainant was recorded under Section 200 of the Code and thereafter an enquiry was companyducted under Section 202 of the Code and ultimately companynizance was taken.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Code.
As the companyplaint would further uncurtain, in spite of substantial amount of money being paid by way of advance, numbersteps were taken by the accused persons to ensure supply of machineries and equipments with an ulterior motive, as a companysequence of which the companyplainant suffered huge loss.
Thereafter, vide order dated 18.10.2000, the learned Magistrate took companynizance in respect of the offences.
Be it stated, for some reason, the order of companynizance initially taken was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted to the trial companyrt to deal with the aspect of companynizance in accordance with law.
In this backdrop, the Page 3 companyplaint was lodged for the offences which have been mentioned hereinbefore.
The accused persons being desirous of supplying the machinery and equipments persuaded the companyplainant to place the purchase order in their favour and on the basis of their past performance, the appellant placed the purchase order on 23.10.1997.
The primary plank of proponement before the High Court was that the order of companynizance was sensitively susceptible inasmuch as the alleged forged document was produced in the suit brought by the respondents and, therefore, the prohibition companytained in Section 195 1 b ii would get attracted on all fours.
92 of 1998.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
