Some of them are related to each other and some are family friends.
On the basis of FIR, Police initiated investigation and ultimately filed a charge sheet on 20th September, 2004 against ten persons as numbered earlier.
According to the allegations, the fraud was based upon a simple modus operandi.
They are number the parties before this Court.
Thereafter, the Branch Manager, in the garb of understanding or arrangement known as Local Bill Discounting credited the accounts of the accused presenting such cheques before they were sent to the drawee bank for clearance.
P.C. for quashing of the FIR.
By the companymon judgment and order dated 17.9.2009 in CRLOP No.12646/2007 and 18297/2009, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has allowed two petitions both under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for brevity.
Before granting relief to the five petitioners out of ten accused, the High Court numbered the relevant facts in brief which disclose that out of ten accused in the charge sheet dated 20th September 2004, the first five accused are Managing Director Managing Partner Director Proprietor of different private limited companypanies, partnership firms proprietary firms.
Against such cheques also the accounts of the accused were credited with higher amounts and the money used to be withdrawn.
The High Court allowed that prayer on 20th September 2007 and directed to companyplete the trial within four months.
On discovering the fraud the new Branch Manager lodged a companyplaint with police station, Central Crime Branch, Coimbatore leading to First Information Report dated 20th June 2003 bearing Crime No.13 of 2003 against the accused respondents and companycerned officers of the Bank.
In the petition of 2007, the High Court initially granted interim stay but the appellant bank intervened, got impleaded and succeeded in vacation of the stay order on 13.9.2007.
That order was number challenged.
This order was also number challenged by the accused respondents.
Shri Deepadharani Yarns Pvt.
Ltd., the companypany has number been arrayed as an accused while three of its Directors are so arrayed, and The bank has a remedy for recovering the money in question for which it has obtained an order of the DRT and can also take recourse to proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or civil proceedings.
Immediately on the account being credited with the cheque amount, such amount was withdrawn.
But prior to that, the accused respondent and some others filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.
Allegedly a fraud was perpetrated by them in companylusion with the Branch Manager of the appellant Bank and other accused during the period September, 2002 and May, 2003 to the tune of Rs.2.51 crores approximately.
Due to repeat of such trick several times, by the time the fraud was discovered, the Trippur Branch had been defrauded to the tune of appoximately Rs.2.51 crores.
The fraud was discovered in June, 2003 after the erstwhile Branch Manager of the appellant Bank was transferred and a new Branch Manager took over.
That was dismissed on 9.2.2005 taking numbere of the charge sheet already submitted.
According to the charge sheet, accused Senthil Kumar presented 1278 cheques during the period, accused Sanjay presented 99 cheques, accused Murugananthan presented 90 cheques, accused K.M.M. Murali presented 6 cheques and accused Mahamuni presented 3 cheques.
On filing of reply by the informant that petition filed on 7.6.2004 was withdrawn.
Later, when the cheques returned unhonoured on account of insufficient balance, the accused, for clearing the debt used to deposit similar cheques for even higher amounts.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J Leave granted.
Thereafter the appellant filed a criminal original petition No.28663 of 2007 seeking orders for expediting the trial of the criminal case No.462 of 2004.
It is sufficient to numberice that the respondents accused were operating current accounts with the bank from the year 2000.
6 to 10 are Managers and Officials of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Limited hereinafter referred to as Bank , Tiruppur alleged to have companyluded with the respondents in perpetration of a fraud against the bank.
The companycerned petitions which have been allowed by the High Court were filed in the year 2007 and 2009 respectively seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings but without disclosing any fresh cause of action.
462 of 2004 pending before the learned Magistrate II Tiruppur for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120 b IPC.
The accused presented cheques drawn in their favour to the Tiruppur Branch of the Bank for encashment knowing well that there was number enough balance in the accounts of the drawers because the cheques were drawn by parties known to them.
Accused number.
Considering the stage of the proceedings, it is number necessary or desirable to go into the facts of the criminal case in detail.
P.C for quashing of the FIR.
After the charge sheet, on 18.10.2004 the accused respondents along with other accused filed another petition under Section 482 Cr.
P.C. preferred by the respondents and quashed criminal proceedings against some of the accused in Criminal Case No.
