RAJARAM BAPU CO-OP CEMENT KARKHGANA LTD Vs. CHIKODI MAHILA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETYLTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.150/2012 and CC No.1224/2011, respectively pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkodi. The brief factual matrix which are undisputed are that the respondent - Chikkodi Mahila Co -operative Society Ltd., deposited a sum of Rs.52,82,135/ - under a fixed deposit with the petitioner - Rajaram Bapu Co -op Cement Karkhana Ltd. Accordingly, the deposit receipts have been issued in favour of the respondent -Society. It appears the respondents have sought for premature release of some amount and they made a request accordingly. In order to release the premature fixed deposits receipts, a cheque was issued by accused Nos.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.1,32,483/ - dated 31/3/2011 bearing cheque No.115748. It is alleged that all the Directors of the first accused -Concern have authorised accused Nos.1 and 2 to issue the said cheque. On presentation of the said cheque, the same came to be dis -honoured, a notice was issued on 14/5/2011 and the said notice was not replied within the prescribed period of time. The complaint was filed and the Court has taken cognizance and summons were issued to all the petitioners and the case is set down for evidence. These facts actually pertaining to Crl.P.No.11718/2013. So far as Crl.P.No.11719/13 is concerned, in order to repay the interest on the deposit and also matured F.D. amount, a cheque was issued by accused Nos.1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ - dated 15/4/2011. The said cheque was also returned with a Shara 'in sufficient funds'. Thereafter, a notice was issued and the same was not replied. The respondents also filed another complaint and the same was registered, cognizance was taken, summons were served on the accused and the said case is also set down for evidence after recording the plea of the accused persons.

(2.) AT this juncture, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that even the entire complaint averments and the sworn statement is taken into consideration, as also the evidence on the part of the complainant, there is absolutely no explanation as to how and in what manner the accused Nos.4 to 18 have taken part in issuance of the said cheque, except one sentence that the said accused persons have authorised accused Nos.1 and 2 to issue the cheque. Secondly, the learned Counsel strenuously contends that though the notice has not been replied, but, subsequently entire amount due under the disputed cheques have been paid to the first respondent and obtained receipt. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.Gundawade strenuously contends that the notice issued were not at all replied and no payment has been made prior to the lodgment of the complaint. Only after filing of the complaint, the amounts have been paid to the first respondent and receipts have been obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, if the trial goes on, if the offence is established before the Court, the petitioners are liable to be fastened with double the amount of the cheque. Therefore, merely because the payment was made after the complaint being filed the proceedings cannot be quashed. Secondly, the learned Counsel contends that the entire transaction of depositing of the amount with the petitioners by the respondent took place at the instance of all the Directors. In fact, all the Directors have persuaded the first respondent to deposit their amount in the petitioner's Concern, and on request, all the Directors have in fact indulged in directing the accused Nos.1 and 2 to issue those cheque. Therefore, they are also liable for punishment and they are also liable to be tried before the trial Court. On the above said rival contentions, the Court has to see what exactly the allegations made against the accused persons herein. The learned counsel took me through the complaint averments. The complaint averments shows at paragraph 3 at the end of the paragraph that

(3.) THUS , it is alleged that at the interest of all the accused, the complainant's society has deposited the amount with the petitioners. Except these two sentences, on reading the entire other portions of the complaint, it does not established as to what exactly the role played by the remaining Directors i.e, Accused Nos.4 to 18 are concerned. Even on plain reading of these two sentences, one sentence contradict another. Because of the reason, the first sentence says that all the accused have authorised the General Manager and the Chairman to act for the Cement Karkhane. That gives a meaning that the other accused persons have authorised to look after the day to day affairs of the said Karkhane and the second sentence says that all the accused are participating in the business of the said Cement Karkhane. So in the first sentence, it is said that even business have been authorized to be looked after by the General Manager and the Chairman. The second sentence, it can not be said they were also participating in the day to day businesses of the said Cement Karkhane. Even otherwise, by looking into these two sentences, it can not be said, what exactly the role of these petitioners in issuing the cheque in favour of the respondents. The role should be in such a manner that what are the powers and responsibilities allotted to them by and how they were looking after the business of the company, etc. No such specific averments are there.