Judgment

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.- Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench allowing the criminal revision petition filed by the respondents. Challenge in the criminal Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 1339 of 2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 5-102006 of the lligh Court of Madhya Pradesh. Bench at Indore in Crl. Revision No. 865 of 2006

tes.

revision petition was to the order dated 14-8-2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 2114 of 2003. By the said order charges were framed against the respondents. The learned a Judicial Magistrate directed framing of charge for offence punishable under Sections 420,406 read with Section 34 IPC.

3. Background facts as projected by the appellant in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellant Company is a registered company dealing with the sale of b auto-vehicles at Indore and the respondents are Directors of the Chetak Construction Ltd., a registered company having its Head Office at Chetak Chamber, R.N.T. Mark, Indore and Accused 3 is the Secretary of that Company. In the year 1988-1989 the accused approached the complainant Company for obtaining case of Tata dumpers and light commercial vehicles for a specific period on monthly lease rent basis. The respondents assured the complainant Company that as per the agreement they will pay monthly lease rent without any default and to support their claim, they will also furnish bank guarantee for due performance of the condition of the contract. In view of that proposal, agreements were executed between the parties on 13-51988, 14-11-1988 and 25-3-1989 for delivery of 25 dumpers, 10 dumpers, 20 dumpers and 4 light commercial vehicles and the accused persons took the d delivery of the aforesaid vehicles from the complainant and also agreed for payment of the monthly lease rent for 36 months.

4. For the due performance of the agreement, necessary documents were exceuted by the accused persons in favour of the complainant. After some time, the complainant came to know that Accused 4 was unable to pay him lease rent according to the agreement. Then the complainant called Accused e 1 and 2 to execute personal guarantee bonds in favour of the complainant and after some persuasion, the so-called personal guarantee bonds were executed by Accused I and 2 in favour of the complainant for due performance of the agreement on 6-12-1991. They also gave collateral security in favour of the complainant of a property belonging to M/s Choudhary Builders (P) Ltd. and also produced the Board Resolution dated 6-2-1990 to the complainant. The complainant was unable to get any rent in time from the accused persons and also found that the applicants/accused in violation of the condition of the agreement have illegally sold eight vehicles to other parties with ulterior motive, thus committing criminal breach of trust and had cheated the complainant. On these allegations, the complainant through its Manager filed a complaint under Sections 420 and 406 IPC against the respondents.

5. Before the trial court, the learned trial Magistrate after taking the cognizance against the accused recorded before charge evidence and on consideration of before charge evidence by order dated 14-8-2006 ordered for framing of the charge as noted above.

6. The order for framing of the charge was questioned before the High h Court in the revision petition. After noticing the stands of the petitioners before it and the respondent who is the present appellant, the High Court noted as follows:

"All these cases are distinguishable with the facts of the present case.

In the present case, the applicants are not praying for quashment of the proceedings under the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicants/accused came up before this Honble Court against the order of framing of the charge and on the basis of the prima facie