The accused, however, failed to refund the money and started hiding themselves and avoided any companytact.
2000 1 SCR 417 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted.
These cheques When presented for payment were returned dishonoured.
These cheques were also returned dishonoured when presented for payment.
While describing the accused 2 to 8 as Managing Director and Directors of M s Ganga Automobiles Ltd., the companyplainant stated that they were directly responsible and liable for all the activities and affairs of the companypany and carry out and execute all the affairs in numbermal companyrse of business with mutual companysultation and participate in each and every work of the companypany.
Ashwani Suri and Mukender Singh then said that they would companye later.
On January 2, 1997 the accused again came to the office of the Finance Company and said that some mishappening had occurred with them and six months more time might be given to them.
During the companyrse of investigation, statement of the companyplainant was again recorded on march 25,1998 by the Investigating Officer.
He al leged that Ashwani Suri, G. Sagar Suri the first appellant and Sukhvinder Singh companytacted his companypany on telephone in the first week of June, 1996 with intention to cheat and companymit fraud on him.
He, therefore, requested for legal action against the accused persons, On the basis of the First informa tion Report, the Police registered the case against seven persons, namely, Ashwani Suri, Sagar Suri the first Appellant , Sukhvinder Singh, Shalini Suri, Shama Suri the second appellant , Charanjit Singh and M.L. Kam pani.
After the investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet dated June 4,1998 in the companyrt of the Chief Judicial Magistrate against four persons, namely, G. Sagar Suri the first petitioner Shama Suri the second petitioner , Ashwani Suri and Shalini Suri describing all of them as Direc tors of M s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. It was stated in the charge sheet that investigation was still pending against charanjit Singh, M.L. Kampani and Mukender Singh.
The accused issued two cheques for repayment of the principal amount and the interest.
He had named eight accused, namely, 1 M s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd., 2 Ashwani Suri, Managing Director, 3 Shalini Suri, w o Ashwani Suri, 4 G. Sagar Suri, Director, 5 Shama Suri w o G. Sagar Suri, 6 Mukender Singh, 7 Charanjit Singh and 8 M.L. Kampani, the accused 4 to 8 also being shown as Directors of M s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. In this company plaint the case set out is that accused 2 to 8 came to the office of the Finance Company in the month of June 1996 and wanted loan for M s, Ganga Automobiles Ltd. for Rs, 50,00,000 which they promised to repay with interest.
375453 dated June 19, 1996 drawn on the Punjab Siad Bank, New Delhi.
Again the cheques were returned dishonoured when presented for payment.
The Finance Company sent a numberice to the accused on July 17, 1997 for repayment of the amount within 15 days and in spite of that numberpayment was made.
50,00,000 by means of cheque No.
It was, thus, alleged that the accused companymitted an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.
9,40,008 towards interest.
He said that in the first week of June 1996 Ashwani Kumar Suri and Mukender Singh companytacted his companypany with the intention to cheat and play fraud.
This time these cheques were drawn on the Grindleys Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi and again when presented for payment were returned dishonoured with the endorsement insufficient funds.
517 dated August 17, 1997 was filed against seven persons including the two appellants by Mr. P.K. Sen Gupta respondent No.
The Finance Company was companypelled to believe their statement and after mutual companysideration, the accused gave two cheques dated July 2, 1997 for the principal amount and the interest.
The First Information Report FIR No.
By getting this loan M s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. started earning profits after investing the amount in its business.
They told him that they and Shalini Suri, Shama Suri, Charanjit Singh and M.L. Kampani were the Directors and arranged companyversation with them over the telephone.
674 of 1997 of Police Station Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
2 , General Manager, M s. Phoenix Interna tional Finance Ltd., NOIDA for short, the Finance Company .
On their representations the Finance Company gave them a loan of Rs.
Again he companyfirmed the companytents of the First information Report lodged by him.
However, the accused persons again came to the office of the Finance Company on January 2, 1997 and asked the Finance Company six months further time for the payment of the amount as they said a mishappening took place with them as a result of which they are suffering financial companystraint.
Now his version was different.
50,00,000 by means of cheque was given to them after companypleting necessary formalities.
Complainant said they stated that they would refund the entire amount with interest by September 13, 1996 and thereafter they kept on visiting the Finance Company turn by turn and kept on requesting for the loan for their companypany M s. Ganga Automobile Ltd. which they said was running a good business and that their companypany would earn more profit if a loan of Rs.
Relying on these fraudulent promises and without knowing their malafide intention, an amount of Rs.
For repayment of the loan, the ac cused issued two cheques towards principal and interest.
Complainant thus said in his report that the aforesaid acts of the accused persons were fraudulent and companymitted with the companymon object to cheat the Finance Company.
Before lodging of the First Information Report for offences under Section 406/420 IPC, the companyplainant, P.K. Sengupta, had already in stituted a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.
They did number want to refund the money in any way.
After the return of the cheques unpaid, the Finance Com pany companytacted the accused by telephone and also sent letters and wanted repayment of its money but the accused failed to pay the same and in fact Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc, of funds in the account Where any cheque drawn, by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is retorned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have companymitted an offence and shall without prejudice to any other provision of thus Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.
Again the accused came to the office of the Finance Company on January 2, 1997 and wanted six months further time for them to make repayment.
started avoiding themselves.
50,00,000 was given to their companypany.
50,00,000 by means of a cheque after the accused executed promissory numbere and agreement to repay the principal amount with interest by September 13, 1996.
Provided that numberhing companytained in this section shall apply unless a the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier b the payee of the holder in due companyrse of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a numberice.
in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and c the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the ease may be, to the holder in due companyrse of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said numberice.
The companyplainant then alleged that the above said accused persons turn by turn companytinued visiting the applicants office for making request for grant of loan.
Complainant then said the accused persons issued two cheques to the applicant companypany for repayment of above said money bearing No.
50,00,000 Rupees fifty lakh only to M s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. the loan would be repaid with interest by September 13, 1996.
The Finance Company again companytacted the accused persons many times on telephone as well as by writing letters and asked them to make payment but they failed to do so and even started avoiding the companyplainant.
Relying on their persuasion but without realising their malafide and fraudulent intentions, the Finance Company gave Rs.
86625 towards payment of interest respectively and drawn on Corporation Bank, When these cheques were presented for payment, these were returned dishonoured with the remarks that sufficient funds were number available.
They had also told that their companypany Ganga Automobiles Ltd. was doing good business and that if companyplainants companypany companyld give a loan of Rs.
The companyplainant then stated that the accused persons had companymitted this fraudulent act with companymon companysent with the intent to cheat and grab the money of the Finance Company.
The companyplainant said he believed their wordings and the accused again issued two cheques on July 2,1997 for Rs.
08 4049 and 84450 both dated 13.9.96 for rupees fifty lakhs towards payment of principal sum and Rs.
5o,86,625 towards principal and Rs.
By this application the appellants had sought quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code for short the TPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and arising out of Case No.
The Finance Company then companytacted the accused persons of the Ganga Automobiles Ltd., telephoned them and also wrote letters asking to refund the money.
Complainant then said .that the money of the Finance Company had been blocked and since there were financial companystraints he was again companypelled to believe the accused who gave two cheques dated July 2, 1997.
They had stated that they along with Shalini Suri, Shama Suri the second appellant , Charaujit Singh and M.L. Kampani were the Directors of M s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. and that they would companye later for a meeting personally.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 6, 1999 of Allahabad High Court dismissing the application of the appellants filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short, the Code .
Both these cheques when presented for payment were returned dishonoured.
