DEOKI NANDAN PRASAD,J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 21.5.1999 in connection with Complaint Case No. 124/99.
(2.) THE complainant, who was also one of the Directors claimed in the complaint petition that M/s. Bharat Re -rolling Mills was a Private Limited Company, registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The complainant was inducted as an Additional Director on or about 6.12.1990 by co -option alongwith Mr. Vanit Kumar Seth, H.L. Gupta (accused No. 2) and Surendra Gupta, the brother of H.L. Gupta. But, both Surendra Gupta and H.L. Gupta resigned from the Board of Directors. However, accused No. 2, H.L. Gupta was appointed as Managing Director of the Company. On 5th April, 1997 the Board of Directors in their meeting resolved that hence forth the Bank Accounts that Allahabad Bank at Bokaro Steel City will be operated in one single signature of H.L. Gupta or J.K. Seth, the complainant as Director and the Bank shall honour the cheques. The said resolution was sent to the Allahabad Bank having its main Branch Office at Naya More, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. The complainant, J.K. Seth tendered his resignation on 5th April, 1997 and thereafter he did not exercise any power as Director of the Company nor did he sign any document such as cheques, instruments etc. However, the complainant in course of business, while the complainant was Director, he had signed some blank and undated cheques which used to happen just to facilitate payments and adhere to commitments made in absence particularly to the Steel Authority of IndiaLtd. The complainant since the date of his resignation i.e., 5.4.1997, he was having no nexus or relationship with the business activities of the Company. The Complainant had parted with the Share certificate amounting to Rs. 2,63,000/ - and Rs. 50,000/ - and it was handed -over to the accused No. 2, H.L. Gupta. It is further alleged that although the complainant resigned on 5.4.1997 which was accepted on 7.4.1997, but the said acceptance of resignation appears to have been forged and ante dated by a letter addressed to the complainant dated 15.4.1997 under the signature of accused No. 2. H.L. Gupta in which it was added that the resignation of the complainant was accepted subject to approval of the Bank. It is further alleged that the accused No. 2 inconnivance with accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 got encashed those cheques in favour of third party and misappro -priated by drawing more than Rs. 88 lakhs as over draft from the Bank with the help of the Bank employees, accused 5 and 6. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and some witnesses were also examined. After perusing the evidence on record and considering the materials, the Court below took cognizance against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 406, 418, 468, 477A, 500, 506 and 120B, IPC by the rder impugned. Against which, this application has been filed and claimed that the Court below has committed error in taking cognizance against the petitioners without any basis as the petitioners being the Bank Officials have got no concern with the forgery, if any or encashment of money by accused No. 2.
(3.) A counter affidavit has also been filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 controverting the allegation made out in the petitioner. It is alleged that a huge amount was withdrawn and misappropriated in connivance with the petitioners and though the complainant, O.P. No. 2 had already resigned on 5th April, 1997 which was also accepted on 7th April, 1997. Anything mentioned in the letter dated 15.4.1997 contrary to the Resolution of the Board of Directors dated 7.4.1997 clearly proves the Criminal Act of the accused No. 2 as well as connivance with the petitioners because they used the said forged letter dated 15.4.1997 which was never served on the complainant, it is also claimed that Section195, Cr PC is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners and the sanction does not require in this case as regards to the petitioners. The Court below has rightly took cognizance against the petitioners.;