- (1.)Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned Counsel for the parties. Both these criminal applications are filed by invoking provisions of Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash and set aside Criminal Complaint No. 2500/2012 filed by respondent No. 1 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati and summons issued by the said Court in pursuance of the said complaint dated 7/8/2012 by holding that filing of such complaint and its continuance would be gross abuse of process of law and Court. Thus, both the criminal applications can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment.
(2.)The facts, which are necessary to know the controversy involved, can be briefly stated as under:
"The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Application No. 767/2012 and applicant Nos. 1 to 4 in Criminal Application No. 73/2013 are the original accused in the criminal complaint as stated above. It is the case of the respondent No. 1/complainant that it is a Private Limited Company established under the provisions of the Companies Act and deals in the business of production and selling spices under the name and style as "M/s. Gharkul Industries Pvt. Ltd." while applicant No. 1 Ameya Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. deals in the business of paper production and all other applicants are its Directors. The respondent No. 1 and applicants being well acquainted with each other and applicants being in need of financial assistance for their business approached respondent No. 1 with a request to provide them financial assistance. The respondent No. 1 considering the relations and need of the applicants provided financial assistance and on negotiations and mutual agreement executed Memorandum of Understanding with the applicants, which was signed by applicant No. 2 (in Criminal Application No. 73/2013) with consent of all the applicants in the presence of two attesting witnesses. It is also the case of respondent No. 1 that all the applicants had agreed that the amount so received from respondent No. 1 would be returned within a span of one or two years. The respondent No. 1 accordingly made following payments to the applicants as and when demanded:

Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 1,50,19,831/- was received by the applicants.

(3.)It is the further case of respondent No. 1 that on 18/8/2010 a letter was issued to the applicants demanding balance-sheet of the Company, which was supplied and accordingly accounts were confirmed by the applicants and on 21/6/2012, the applicants issued a letter admitting the outstanding balance of respondent No. 1 as on 31/3/2012 to the extent of Rs. 1,49,94,831/-. According to respondent No. 1, the applicants being Directors of their Company are responsible for conduct of its business and since they are involved in the business of their Company are responsible for the affairs of the Company. It is the further case of respondent No. I that applicant Company issued a cheque dated 2/6/2012 in favour of respondent No. 1 towards part payment of the above said amount valued for Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Finance Branch at Nagpur, which was deposited by respondent No. 1 in UCO Bank, Amravati for encashment. However, same was dishonoured due to "funds insufficient". The intimation of dishonour of cheque was received by respondent No. 1 on 4/6/2012. After dishonour of cheque, notice was issued to the applicants demanding the said amount of cheque, which was refused to be accepted by the applicants in spite of intimation given by the Postal Authorities and thus, the notice was returned with remark "not claimed".