The High Court dismissed the petitions by holding that the truth of the allegations have to be ascertained by the investigating agency.
It is alleged in the companyplaint that the loan transaction of the companypany with IIBI was settled with the efforts of the companyplainant respondent No.3 herein but the companypany, Directors and Promoter did number pay him the companysultancy fee as promised and they companyspired together to deceive the companyplainant and companymitted offences as alleged.
The Company also issued a cheque dated 6.8.2008 for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank Limited and the same was agreed to be presented to the bank after obtaining the acceptance letter from IIBI on or before 30.10.2008 or otherwise the cheque should be returned to the companypany.
The undisputed facts in brief are as follows The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.2341 of 2011 is a Limited companypany of which appellants Venkataraman in Criminal Appeal No.2344 of 2011 and appellant Mani Prasad in Criminal Appeal No.2343 of 2011 were Directors and the appellant Chandrasekhran in Criminal Appeal No.2342 of 2011 was the promoter.
The 3rd respondent made an endorsement in writing in the said letter agreeing to the said terms and signed it.
Nos.220 to 222 of 2011 whereby the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.1461/2010 registered by Changanasserry Police Station against the appellants under Sections 417, 418, 420, 120B and 34 IPC was dismissed.
The companypany and its Directors filed petitions under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code in Criminal M.C.No.220 to 222 of 2011 on the file of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam companytending that the understanding between the companypany and the companyplainant was that the settlement with the IIBI should be companypleted by 30.10.2008 and the companyplainant was number able to settle the loan before the said date and hence he companyld number present the cheque in the light of the companydition imposed on him in the letter dated 6.8.2008 and the settlement was companypleted only on 5.1.2009 due to the efforts of the companypany itself and number at the instance of the companyplainant and at any rate it can only be breach of companytract for which numbercriminal liability can be fastened against the companypany and its Directors.
Challenging the said order the present appeals have been preferred.
The 3rd respondent on retirement from the bank agreed to act as a Consultant of the companypany in settling the loan and the companypany issued a letter dated 6.8.2008 stating that the settlement of the Company dues should be at Rs.8.25 crores and the acceptance letter from the IIBI should be obtained on or before 30.10.2008 and it was also agreed that Rs.75 lakhs would be given towards companysultancy fees for the above settlement, out of which Rs.5 lakhs was given in advance to the 3rd respondent and the balance amount to be paid on the companypletion of the assignment.
The 3rd respondent filed a private companyplaint dated 13.10.2010 against the companypany, its Directors and Promoter in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Changanasserry and the same was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Police registered a case in Crime No.1461 of 2010 for the alleged offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 120B and 34 IPC.
The companypany defaulted in repayment and wanted to settle the loan amount.
The Company availed a loan from the Industrial Investment Bank of India and respondent No.3 herein companyplainant as the AGM of the said bank at the relevant time, dealt with their loan application and had sanctioned the same.
NAGAPPAN, J. All these appeals are filed challenging the impugned companymon order dated 28.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Misc.
