JUDGMENT

M. M. DAS, J. - The petitioners in this Criminal Misc. Case assail the order dated 26.8.2000 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. Case No. 248 of 2000 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 406/468/420/422/34 IPC and seek for quashing of the said proceeding in its entirety.

2. The opp. party NO.2 - IPICOL through its, the then Secretary filed the aforesaid complaint case i.e., I.C.C. Case No. 248 of 2000 before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners, who are accused in the said complaint case availed a short term loan of Rs. 25.00 crores from the complainant by securing the same on creating second charge on the assets of the company and by pledging of shares. Accordingly, certain shares of Mideast India Limited and MESCO Pharmaceuticals Ltd. were pledged. The complainant on verification out of the pledged shares, some of the share certificates were earlier pleaded as security for the loan taken from the IDBI. It is also stated in the complaint petition that when clarification was sought for in this regard from the accused persons, the accused company by letter dated 23.1.1999 informed the complainant - IPICOL that the shares which were earlier pledged to the IDBI were pledged with the IPICOL due to error in the computerized data system which was discovered in September, 1998 and was duly intimated to IPICOL by the accused company Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (for short, 'the MISL') on 9.10.1998, which according to the complainant, was not received by it. The MISL wanted to pledge 262.98 lakhs numbers of its shares in place of the shares which were already pledged with IDBI, but no pledge agreement has been executed so far. Basing on the above allegations, the complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 406/468/420/422/34IPC. The learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offences, as stated above, which is challenged before this Court.

3. It appears from the annexures made to the Criminal Misc. Case Petition that as per the 14th High Power Committee meeting of the complainant-IPICOL on 24.2.1999 and as per their advise, the petitioner no.1 pledged further share of 46.65 lakhs against the erroneous double pledged shares and, accordingly, the petitioners submitted additional pledge of shares and also submitted additional security which amounted to Rs. 24.59 crores as per the market value of the shares and value of the assets. On 30.3.2000, the petitioner no. 1 executed the hypothecation deed/pledge letter showing pledge of shares as additional security to cover the loan amount of Rs. 17.00 crores. After taking the additional security and pledge, as stated above, the IPICOL filed Money Suit No. 8/42/145 of 2009/2004/2000 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar for realization of an amount of Rs. 34,54,63,014/- out of which Rs. 17.00 crores is towards the principal and the balance towards interest @ 30% per annum. The said suit was decreed on 15.10.2009. Challenging the said decree, the petitioners have preferred RFA No. 23 of 2010 before this Court and pursuant to the orders passed on 27.4.2011 and 11.5.2011 in the said RFA, the petitioners paid an amount of Rs. 17.00 crores to IPICOL towards the principal amount and the interest portion is now subjudice in the First Appeal. A further sum of Rs. 4.00 crores has been paid on 14.8.2012 pursuant to the direction in the said RFA No. 23 of 2010 in respect of OTS proposal.

4. It may be mentioned here that after the petitioners received the summons in the complaint case from the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar, they filed an application to recall the order of cognizance along with the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The learned S.D.J.M., however, by a common order dated 18.7.2001 rejected both the applications, which were challenged by the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 444 of 2001 and, 726 of 2001 before this Court which ultimately stood