C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) SECOND respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioners and others alleging that the accused who entered into an agreement on 20-1-1995 to purchase a multi-layer coated boards manufacturing machine for Rs. 380. 00 lakhs on ex-works basis, took bank guarantees and post dated cheques as security for due performance of the contract, and that as per the terms agreed between them those bank guarantees and post dated cheques have to be returned on pro-rata basis on the basis of the supplies made and even after it supplied the machinery worth Rs. 380. 00 lakhs, the accused who paid the price of Rs. 380 lakhs, as agreed, had, with a view to defraud it, presented some of the cheques which have to be returned to it as per the understanding, for payment and when those cheques were dishonoured, accused not only launched criminal prosecution against it but had also, fraudulently, invoked the bank guarantees without returning them, and hence are liable for punishment under Sections 120-B, 406, 417,418 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The said complaint was referred to police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by the learned Magistrate. The police, after investigation, referred the case as of civil in nature. Thereupon, on a protest petition filed by the second respondent, the learned magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the authorized representative of the second respondent, took cognizance of the case under Section 420 IPC only against the petitioners and others as c. C. No. 1089 of 2002. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in that C. C. against the petitioners who are A-1 (company), A-3 and A-4 who are some of its directors.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations in the complaint and the sworn statement of the authorized representative of the second respondent, even if taken to be true, disclose only a civil liability but not any offence, much less an offence under 420 ipc, because there is nothing in the complaint or the sworn statement to show that petitioners had mens rea to cheat even at the time of entering into the transactions, which is the sine qua non for an offence under section 420 IPC. It is his contention that second respondent filed O. S. No. 1562 of 1996 and sought an interim injunction under rule 1 of Order 39 CPC restraining the first petitioner from invoking the bank guarantees furnishing by it to the first petitioner and obtained an injunction from the trial court, and that first petitioner preferred an appeal against that order and that the appellate court, after elaborately discussing all the contentions raised, reversed the order of the trial Court and vacated the injunction, and the said order of the appellate Court was confirmed by this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 2445 to 2450 of 1998 by giving a specific finding that first petitioner has a right to invoke the bank guarantees. It is his contention that after the disposal of the said C. R. Ps , when the trial Court gave a direction to the second respondent to pay the court fee on the value of the bank guarantees sought to be invoked by the first petitioner, second respondent had withdrawn the suit and so, it is clear that the second respondent who failed to obtain the relief in a Civil Court, invoked the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court only with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioners with a view to extract money from the petitioners by using arm twisting methods and to coerce them to a compromise, and that that is so is evident from the fact that the complaint was given several months after the dismissal of CRP No. 2445 and 2450 of 1998 by this Court, and so the proceeding against the petitioners are liable to be quashed, more so because first petitioner, being a juristic person, cannot have mens rea to commit an offence. He relied on Alpic finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan S. N. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar, Ajaymitra v. State of A. P. , h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document