Essentials of fraudulent inducement and dishonest intention not made out in complaint.

1. Crl.O.P.No.7574 of 2005 is filed against C.C.No.6205 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolition Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. Crl.O.P.No.24542 of 2005 is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3157 of 2004 dated 20.12.2004 in C.C.No.6205 of 2004 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

3. Crl.O.P.No.24543 of 2005 is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1245 of 2005 dated 7.4.2005 in C.C.No.6205 of 2004 by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

4. Crl.O.P.No.7574 of 2005 is filed for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.6205 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

5. Crl.O.P.No.24542 of 2005 is filed by the 4th accused Mrs.Parvathi Madhava to set aside the order dated 20.12.2004 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3157 of 2004 in C.C.No.6205 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

6. Crl.O.P.No.24543 of 2005 is filed by the 2nd accused S.Madhava and 5th accused Mallikaarjunappa to set aside the order dated 7.4.2005 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1245 of 2005 in C.C.No.6205 of 2004 pending on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

7. The accused face a charge under Secs.406, 409 and 420, I.P.C. The complainant M/s.Man Takraf (India) Private Limited has alleged that it is carrying on the business of manufacturing, assembling of equipments and activities associated with engineering and consulting services. The 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th accused on behalf of the first accused, with clear dishonest intention of cheating and causing wrongful loss to the complainant, approached the complainant in the month of January 1998 to supply stacker including trailor, unloader, wheel-on-boom, reclaimer and transfer car. The first accused placed orders valued at Rs.8 crores with an intention of cheating and causing wrongful loss to the complainant.

8. It is further alleged in the complaint that based on the representations of accused 2 to 5, the complainant shipped around 36 consignments upto 7.10.1999. The accused on receipt of the supplied goods made meagre payments and thereafter purposefully neglected to make any farther payment. The accused failed to make payment as per the promises made by them. The accused had the intention to cheat and defraud the complainant right from the beginning. The proceeds received from various financial institutions were misappropriated by the accused for their personal unlawful enrichment. The accused falsely stated, by letter dated 27.3.2003, that M/s.Eastern Investments Limited has sanctioned USD 15 million in favour of the accused and it would be released within 30 to 60 days. The accused gained time and falsely represented that they would clear the dues at the earliest and that there was no such dealing with the bank.

9. It is further alleged in the complaint that the machinery supplied was a ‘State of the Art’ and as such the items manufactured are tailor-made for the accused and no other company can use it. The accused are now offering to give back the machinery which itself would show the intention of the accused to cheat and defraud the complainant. Thus the accused have committed offences under Secs.406, 409 and 420 of the I.P.C.

10. As against the order of directing the Regional Passport Authority, Bangalore to impound the passport issued in favour of the 3rd and 4th accused, the other two criminal original petitions viz., Crl.O.P.Nos.7574 and 24542 of 2005 have been preferred by them respectively.

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7574 of 2005 would submit that unless there is a criminal intention at the very inception of the commercial transaction to dupe the respondent, the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C., is not attracted. He brings to the notice of the Court that out of the value of Rs.3.81 crores for the machineries supplied by the respondent to the pe