S K MURTI Vs. GOVIND PRASAD AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek quashment of criminal proceedings in R. T. (Criminal Case No. 5/92), pending in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Itarsi, which these petitioners are facing for offences punishable under Sections 409, 465 and 467 of the IPC.

(2.) THE respondent filed a complaint, which is registered as R. T. (Criminal Case No. 5/92), in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Itarsi, against these petitioners, on these facts that he happens to be "no Limit Contractor", and a partners of Firm Mohanlal Hiralal of Itarsi. This firm obtains and executes big contracts in respect of which various departments of the State Govt. issue tenders. Firm Mohanlal Hiralal has its account with Punjab National Bank, Branch Itarsi (petitioner No. 2) and complainant/respondent Govind Prasad Agrawal also has his personal accounts in aforesaid Branch of petitioner No. 2. Presently, respondent/complainant has 15 FDRs. worth Rs. 3,40,000/- in Itarsi Branch of petitioner No. 2. The details of these FDRs are stated in Para 2 of the complaint, the copy of which is marked as Annexure P-10. The respondent/ complainant pledged all the aforesaid 15 FDRs bearing Nos. 69/86, 23/87, 17/87, 5/85, 37/86, 400/83, 398/83, 399/83, 12/84, 20/85, 219/86, 220/86, 221/86, 222/86 and 223/86, with petitioner No. 2, for obtaining overdraft facilities in connection with business of Firm M/s. Mohanlal Hiralal. The aforesaid FDRs, were pledged with petitioner No. 1, by the respondent/complainant in the capacity of specific trust for being used by the petitioners in case the over-draft facilities is provided for Firm Mohanlal Hiralal. In Sept. , 1988, the said Firm Mohanlal Hiralal, closed its over-draft facility account and hence the petitioners were not entitled to utilise the aforesaid FDRs. for any other purpose, in the absence of any specific consent in this regard, given by the respondent/complainant. In February, 1989, when respondent approached petitioner No. 2, for obtaining the FDRs, it was informed by petitioner No. 1 that the FDRs are now stand pledged in connection with bank guarantee facility, provided to Firm Mohanlal Hiralal. On inquiry, it could be known that the FDRs of other partners of Firm Mohanlal Hiralal, which were pledged for bank guarantee facility, were already released and returned to these partners by petitioners, in contravention to Banking Rules and its procedure. It could also be known that with a view to avoid the criminal liability and departmental action, the petitioners unauthorisedly affixed the seal on the respondent's FDRs. , for showing that these FDRs are pledged in connection with bank guarantee.

(3.) ON the basis of statement of respondent recorded under Section 200 and the statement of S. K. Dubey, Senior Manager of petitioner No. 2, recorded under Section 202 of the Cr. PC, the learned J. M. F. C. took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 409, 465 and 467 of the IPC, against these petitioners by order dated 2-1-1992. After registering their attendance in the Trial Court, these petitioners filed applications dated 24-6-96 and 5-10-96 respectively, seeking their discharge. The learned J. M. F. C. disallowed both of these applications of these petitioners by a common order dated 21-7-97, and hence these petitioners have knocked the door of this Court seeking exercise of inherent powers, for quashment of proceedings of R. T. (Criminal Case No, 5/92), pending in the Court of J. M. F. C. , Itarsi.