At the preliminary stage, the court cannot quash an FIR if the allegations, when taken at face value, disclose cognizable offences, and the accused have not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate their innocence.

Judgment

N.K. Gupta, J.-

This order shall govern the disposal of above mentioned three petitions, as common question of fact and law is involved in these petitions

2. The applicants being a Banking-Company and its office bearers including various Vice Presidents, Directors, Managers and Shri Kawin B. Ajit, Head Resolution of Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. have preferred the above mentioned petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the FIR for the Crime No.58/2011 lodged at Police Station Goharganj (applicants have wrongly mentioned in the cause title, actual Police Station is Umraoganj District Raisen due to order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

3. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the respondents No.3 and 4 are the companies having their business of manufacture of liquor etc, (hereinafter referred to as "borrower-companies") On 25.10.2005 applicant Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "applicant bank'" gave an offer to the respondents No.3 and 4 for resolution of their debts with their lenders. Thereafter agreements took place between the applicant bank and the respondents No.3 and 4 that the applicant bank shall participate in negotiations with Bank of India (for short "BOI"), Bank of Baroda (for short "BOB") and other banks to resort to one time settlement (for short "OTS") for their outstanding loans which were non-performing assets (for short "NPA") for concerned banks. The applicant bank shall get success fees for such negotiations. A term sheet was also executed between the parties. It was agreed that the applicant bank shall also provide the working capital to the respondents No.3 and 4 and for such financial assistance 14% interest shall be charged from the borrower-companies. Thereafter negotiations took place between the applicant bank and other banks like BOI and BOB. The applicant bank assigned agreement from BOI and BOB in the year 2007 and thereafter again a fresh agreement with indicative term sheet took place between the parties. The respondents No.3 and 4 have given some post dated cheques for payment of entire loan in installments. After sometime, it was found that some cheques were dishonored and applicant bank could not get the installment from the respondents No.3 and 4. Therefore, in October 2009 a notice of winding up was given to the respondents No.3 and 4. Thereafter the respondents No.3 and 4 submitted an FIR before SHO Police Station Umraoganj, District Raisen for investigation of offence punishable under Sections 409,420 and 120-B of IPC against the applicant bank and its eleven Directors and eight various Managers. It was mentioned in the FIR that the applicant Shri K.D.Ajit was one of the Managers in the applicant bank. The police obtained a reply from Manilal Kher, Advocate for the applicant bank, Thereafter the respondents No.3 and 4 have filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen on 5.10.2010 for taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC committed by the various applicants. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen forwarded the complaint to the concerned Police Station on the same date for enquiry and thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen waited for the report to be received from the police. On 1.3.2011 SHO, Police Station Umraoganj District Raisen informed that the applicants were not cooperating in investigation, and therefore it was directed that the complaint that was already sent to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. be registered as an FIR and final report as per the provisions of Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. may be submitted including a report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the parties have addressed for more than twelve hours in three days. Out of that, learned counsel for the applicants addressed for more than nine hours.

5. Learned senior counsel and other counsel appearing on beha