- (1.) B. C. Kandpal, J. By means of this petition the appli cants have challenged the order dated 22-5-2u06 passed by the Judicial Mag istrate, Haldwani taking cognizance in criminal complaint case No. 444/2006, U/ss 420,406 and 120-B I. P. C. against the applicants.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 is a Company in corporated under the Companies Act, and is engaged in the manufacture and sale of automobile. The petitioner No. 2 is Regional Manager of Operative Di vision of M/s Tata Motors Limited. The Petitioner No. 3 is the Regional Manager (North) of Tata Motors Limited, peti tioner No. 4 is the Chief Executive Of ficer of Tata Motors Finance and peti tioner No. 5 is the Chief Operating Of ficer of Tata Motors Finance. The peti tioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the employees of Tata Motors Ltd. A criminal complaint was filed by the respondent No. 2 with the alle gation that the complainant is a part nership firm and is an authorized dealer of Tata Motors Ltd. dealing in the sale of light commercial vehicles. It has been alleged in the complaint that the peti tioner No. 2 Subroto Kumar visited the office of the complainant in May, 2005 and asked him to deliver 11 number of vehicles to Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter called as 'scb') on the as surance that sum total of invoice value shall be adjusted in trade advance ac count maintained at 'scb' located at Haldwani. It was further alleged in the complaint that a letter was received by the complainant on 18-5-2005 on behalf of Tata Motors Ltd. to hand over 11 number of vehicles on the assurance that sum total of invoice value shall be adjusted in the trade advance account of the complainant maintained at 'scb'. It has also been alleged in the complaint that on the basis of Misrepresentation by Sh. Subroto Kumar, petitioner No. 2, in connivance with 'scb', the complainant was induced into delivering 11 vehicles to Tata Motors Limited. It has also been alleged in the complaint that after the delivery of 11 vehicles the amount was not adjusted with 'scb' inspite of re peated reminders sent by the complain ant to Tata Motors Limited and 'scb'. The complainant has also alleged that the petitioners did not adjust the alleged agreed amount in the inventory funding facility account of the complainant and that the 'scb' allegedly in connivance with Tata Motors I H. has filed a com plaint U/s 138 of the Negotiable Instru ments Act, against the complainant. The statement of the complain ant was recorded U/s 200 Cr. P. C. and thereafter statement of the witness was recorded U/s 202 Cr. P. C. The Judicial Magistrate after having perused the com plaint and the statements of the com plainant and his witness, took cogni zance in the matter vide order dated 22- 5-2006, summoning the petitioners U/ss 406,120-Band420i. RC.
(3.) THE petitioners have thus filed this petition challenging the summoning order as well as for quashing the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case No. 444/2006, U/ss 406, 420 and 120-8 I. P. C. against the petitioners, pending Before the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, District Nainital. The counter affidavit has been filed by the complainant stating therein that in the instant case there are suffi cient evidence for criminal breach of trust and cheating, as well as criminal conspiracy against all the petitioners. It has also been pleaded that the petition ers cannot seek any remedy at this stage by way of the petition U/s 482 Cr. P. C. as there are disputed questions of facts which can be dealt with by the trial court after the evidence by the parties are ad duced.;