Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Arshdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhinash Jain, D.A.G., Haryana, Mr. Adhirath Singh, Advocate with Ms. Raymon Singh, Advocate and Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Kuldeep Tiwari, J. 

Through the instant petition, as instituted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner No.1-Bank, which is a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition of Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and, the petitioner No.2, who is Deputy General Manager of the petitioner No.1- Bank, yearn for grant of the hereinafter extracted relief(s):-

"Set aside the order dated 12.02.2018, whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned has, after allowing the appeal, as preferred by the respondents No.2 and 3 herein, against the dismissal of their application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., set aside the order dated 16.07.2016 and remitted the respondents concerned to the learned trial Court concerned, with a direction to the latter to hold further enquiry and to proceed with the matter, as per law."

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Owing to dishonour of cheque(s), which was issued by the authorized signatory of M/s Lakhani India Limited (hereinafter referred to as "accused firm"), in lieu of his firms outstanding liability, the petitioner No.1, through petitioner No.2, i.e. its then Chief Manager, instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) against the firm (supra). In the complaint (supra), apart from other Directors of the accused firm, the respondents No.2 and 3 herein were also arrayed as accused Nos.7 and 5, in the capacity of Directors of the accused firm. Moreover, in support of the complaint (supra), the petitioner No.2, i.e. the then Chief Manager of the petitioner No.1 furnished an affidavit in preliminary evidence.

3. During pendency of the complaint (supra), the respondents No.2 and 3 herein moved an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court concerned, thereby seeking prosecution of the present petitioners under Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200 and 420 of the IPC. What triggered the respondents concerned to make the application (supra), was that, despite the petitioners being well acquainted with their designation/status in the accused firm, i.e. "Independent Non-Executive Directors", yet they were deliberately arrayed as accused in the complaint (supra) in the capacity of Directors, on the allegations that, they along with other Directors, used to accept and undertake to make the payment of proceeds to the petitioner-Bank. The respondents further averred in their application (supra) that they had neither executed any security document in favour of the petitioner-Bank, nor had given any undertaking to make payment to it, however, despite that, the petitioner No.2 furnished a false affidavit carrying the hereinafter extracted incorrect averments, in support of the complaint (supra):-

"a. That the accused no. 1 being the principal borrower company through accused no. 2 to 7 being the Directors and touching daily affairs of the company's business, have been enjoying the "Suppliers Bill Discount" credit limit from the complainant bank to the tune of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- against the security documents executed by the accused no. 2 to 7 for and on behalf of accused no. 1 company on 06th January 2009. On the request of accused no. 2 to 7 being the Directors for and on behalf of accused no. l company, the complainant bank further accommodated the accused in granting ad-hoc "Supplier Bill Discount" financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on 30th October 2010 against the security documents executed by the accused no. 2 to 7 for and on behalf of accused no. 1 Company. (As per point no. 2).

b. That the accused no. 1 to 7 used to discount the bills with the complainant bank, so raised by the suppliers of material to the accused. As a result thereof, the complainant bank used to make payment against such instruments to the supplier and the accused no. 1 to 7 used to accept and undertake to make the payment of such proceed to the complainant bank As a matter of arrangeme