- (1.) BY means of this petition under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") petitioners have prayed for quashing the First Information Report (For short "FIR") lodged by opposite party no. 2 Pradeep Singh dated 11.1.2002 (Annexure 8 to the petition), charge-sheet dated 28.8.2002 (Annexure-9) filed after investigation of the aforesaid F.I.R. having case crime No.11 of 2002 and consequential proceedings initiated after taking cognizance thereon under section 406, 420, 379, 411, 504, 506 I.P.C. in Criminal case No. 219 of 2003 pending before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Arun Sinha, counsel for opposite party no. 4, Sri Sudeep Seth and the learned A.G.A. and gone through the record of the aforesaid case along with the record of the trial Court. The brief facts necessary for deciding this petition are that opposite party no. 4 Pradeep Singh (For short "O.P. No.4") moved an application before Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow alleging therein that he is the Managing Director of Cyber World Infosystem (India) Ltd. (For short"Company"). Petitioner Gopal Chand Agarwal and his two sons Gaurav Goel and Vaibhav Goel, petitioner no. 1,2 and 3 respectively came in the month of April, 2000 to his establishment and expressed desire to do business with O.P.No.4 and his father. The O.P.No.4 and his father refused to do business with them. However after 20 days they succeeded in persuading the father of O.P.No. 4. The petitioners expressed desire to purchase shares of company of O.P.No.4 and under oral agreement they handed over a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- lacs to O.P. No. 4. Gradually, they developed intimacy and family relations with O.P. No.4. They virtually developed the relations with intent to defraud and deceive the company and also the O.P .No.4. On 10.06.2000 all the three petitioners came at the company office. They gave two pay orders of Rs. 5 lacs each having no. 10362110 and 1036111 and asked that to save the income tax they are giving this money showing as interest but later on shares will be purchased from this amount. As such a sum of Rs. 16 lacs was given by the petitioners to O.P.No. 4. However, after waiting for long when petitioners did not turn up for shares, the O.P. No.4 contacted and asked them for purchase of shares but they avoided. Thereafter in the month of February, 2001, petitioner no. 1 Gopal Chandra Agarwal shown some need of money. The O.P. No. 4 gave a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs against pay order no. 1036110. Taking the advantage of personal relation with the O.P. No. 4 and his father the petitioners with intent to defraud and cause economic loss under criminal conspiracy came at some date and time in absence of O.P. No.4 and his father in the office of company and took away five cheque leaves having Nos.715861 to 65 of personal account of O.P. No. 4 and five cheque leaves of having Nos. 244145 to 49, company's account, personal letter heads and letter pads of company, some personal papers and other important blank and written signed papers of O.P. No.4 and the petitioners thereby committed theft of the aforesaid articles. The fact of this theft came to the knowledge of O.P. No. 4 when State Bank of India informed that cheques issued by him having no. 715862, 63 and64 of Rs. 14,30,000, Rs.5,30,000/- and Rs. 6,70,300/- respectively, were bounced on account of non-availability of funds in his account. The Branch Manager expressed doubt that some one doing forgery by means of these cheques. Later on, it was found that to up-serve the amount and to defraud O.P. No.4 and his Company the petitioners after making forged entries entered arbitrarily amount in the cheques. O.P. No.4 also mentioned that in connection with business he mostly remained out of station for considerable long period, so he leaves the signed cheques in the office, so in his absence no difficulty may arise in making the payments. When O.P. No.4 and his father contacted the petitioners on 7.10. 2001, the petitioners promised to return stolen cheques, letter pads and other signed documents and came at 5 P.M. in the office of the O.P. No.4 and asked him that they will take the same amount of money mentioned in the cheques and only thereafter, they will return the papers to him. The O.P. No.4 asked why he will return Rs. 25 lacs against Rs.14 lacks received by him from you. The petitioners after hurling abuses and extending threats in the presence of Amit Seth and Awadh Naresh Tiwari left the office. They were also armed with country made pistols. On the basis of this application, the FIR was lodged on 11.1.2002 after order dated 10.1.2002 passed by Circle Officer of Police. The case was investigated and charge-sheet under sections 406, 420, 379, 411, 504 and 506 IPC was filed against the petitioners. The court of ACJM IInd took cognizance and proceeded with the trial in criminal case No. 219 of 2003.
(3.) THE order taking cognizance and consequential proceedings were challenged by the petitioners in the present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court, which was allowed by this Court by means of order dated 10.12.2004. The said order was challenged by respondent no. 4 in Criminal Appeal no. 349 of 2008 before Apex Court. The Apex court after setting aside the order dated 10.12.2004 sent back the case to this Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law.;