D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., praying for quashing the order dated-22.03.2005, passed in Complaint Case No. 202 of 2005, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offences under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420, 425, and 504/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner. The facts relevant for the disposal of this application are as follows: - The Opposite Party No. 2 being a Government of Bihar undertaking, had extended loan to M/s. Rudra Steel Private Ltd., an SSI Unit, situated at Rukka Road of Ranchi-Ramgarh Road, village Hutup, Block Ormanjhi, District Ranchi in the State of Jharkhand. The loan was disbursed for running the Establishment of the Company way back in April, 1997. The present petitioner was one of the directors of the Board of the Company. It is alleged that the Company failed to repay the loan amount and had continued to evade payment of installments in spite of repeated reminders. It is further claimed that after protracted negotiation, a settlement was arrived at between the complainant-Financial Corporation and the Company represented by its Board of Directors and pursuant to the settlement, cheque for some specific amounts was issued by a member of the Board of Directors on behalf of the Company to the complainant-Financial Corporation. It is further alleged that on presentation of the cheque by the complainant-Financial Corporation, the same had bounced. The complainant-Financial Corporation had treated the dishonour of the cheque as the result of intentional and deliberate and dishonest act on the part of the Directors of the Board of Company. On the allegation that the Directors of the Board of the Company had dishonestly obtained substantial loan amount from the Corporation without intending to repay the same and that such dishonest intentions were existing even on the date when the Company had obtained the loan, the case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed on behalf of the Financial Corporation.
(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned order of cognizance as also the order directing him to face trial in the case, on the ground that the same was passed without application of judicial mind and without considering the fact that the petitioner has been made accused only on account of the fact that he was one of the Directors of the Board of the Company and without considering the fact that even before the alleged date of occurrence, i.e. before the date of issuance of the dishonoured cheque, the petitioner had retired from the Board of Directors of the accused-Company.;