Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 2431
PATNA HIGH COURT
Akhilesh Chandra, J.
Lloyds Finance Limited Through Its Managing Director, Namely, Pankaj desai, Son Of Ratilal Desai And Ors.
Versus
The State Of Bihar And Mrs. Shamima Ashraf, Wife Of Ashrafuddin
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24569 of 2005
Decided On : NOVEMBER 04, 2010
The main legal point established is that the pendency of a related matter before another court and the compliance with prescribed/approved schemes for making payments against deposits can be grounds for quashing an order taking cognizance.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Quashing of Order - Non-Banking Finance Company - Quashing of order taking cognizance for offences under Sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code due to pendency of the matter before Mumbai High Court in a related case and the company making payment against deposits to the investors as per the prescribed/approved scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-banking finance company, had a complaint filed against them for non-payment of maturity amount and bouncing of a cheque. The petitioner had already paid the principal amount and the amount for which the cheque bounced, leaving only the question of due interest in controversy.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the order taking cognizance, citing the pendency of the matter before Mumbai High Court in a related case and the company's compliance with the prescribed/approved scheme for making payments against deposits to the investors.
Issues: The issue was the non-payment of due interest by the petitioner, leading to the filing of the complaint and the taking of cognizance by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the pendency of the matter before Mumbai High Court and the company's compliance with the prescribed/approved scheme for making payments against deposits, leading to the quashing of the order taking cognizance.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order taking cognizance, with a liberty to the complainant to initiate a fresh proceeding in case of non-compliance of the direction of Mumbai High Court by the petitioners on the payment of interest.
Akhilesh Chandra, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 01.04.2005 passed by Shri Satyendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 3029 (C)/2004 taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner is a non-banking finance company with whom complainant opposite party No. 2 got a sum of Rs. 15,000/- deposited in two separate deposits on 15.07.1997 but when the maturity amount of Rs. 30,000/- could not be paid on 15.04.2001, the instant case was filed wherein cognizance was taken.
4. It is admitted that petitioners company already paid the principal amount to opposite party No. 2 and also paid the amount for which the cheque was bounced. Only question of due interest till it is actual payment now remains in controversy.
5. During the course of argument, through different annexures, it is brought into notice that Bombay High Court is in control of the controversy relating to different finance company (non-banking) including the petitioner in Company Petition Case No. 1017 of 2002 different orders have been passed from time to time and under the prescribed/approved scheme, the company has been making payment against deposits to the investors. At initial stage, principal investment is being returned to the depositors and thereafter as per direction of the court interest accrued shall be paid.
6. In view of the above undisputed position and pendency of the matter before Mumbai High Court in case No. 1017 of 2002 wherein orders are expected on the point of payment of interest only thereafter further payment is to be made by the petitioners towards interest, there appears no necessity to proceed with the case pending before the court below.
7. Accordingly, it is quashed with a liberty to the opposite party No. 2 to initiate a fresh proceeding in case of non-compliance of the direction of Mumbai High Court by the petitioners on the payment of interest.
