COMMON ORDER

These two Criminal Original Petitions are filed separately by two accused namely Dr.K.Pruthvinath (in Crl.O.P.No.2946 of 2019) & Dr.Badrikrishnaswami (in Crl.O.P.No.2948 of 2019), to quash the F.I.R No.32 of

2019, on the file of 1st respondent police.

2. The gist of the F.I.R registered pursuant to the complaint given by one Dinesh Kumar Mishra, General Manager, Finance and Accounts Department of M/s.Ravindranath GE Medical Associations Private Limited against Dr.Badrikrishnaswami (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2948 of 2019), Dr.K.Pruthvinath, (the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.2946 of 2019) and M/s.Paceman Finance India Limited is that, the defacto complainant company is having its registered Office at Perumbakkam, Chennai. On 07.09.2018, the company recovered a legal notice from M/s.Paceman Finance India Limited (hereinafter referred as “M/s.Paceman”) and on perusing the said notice of the defacto complainant/Dinesh Kumar Mishra came to know that cheque of the defacto complainant for Rs.12 lakhs drawn at HDFC Bank, Madipakkam Branch, maintained by the defacto complainant Company alleged to have been issued to M/s.Paceman on 28.08.2018 for the repayment of the loan availed by Dr.K.Pruthvinath, Ex-Director of the Company and same was dishonoured on presentation. On verification of the records, the complainant alleges that the said cheque pertains to the period between 2013 to 2014. When the 1st accused was serving with the defacto complainant Company as Financial Manager. Their enquiry revealed that, the 1st accused/Badrikrishnaswami with ulterior motive given the cheque to Dr.K.Pruthvinath, for to be misused. Accordingly, for the personal loan of Dr.K.Pruthvinath, the cheque stealthy handed over to Dr.K.Pruthvinath, has been fraudulently used for discharging the personal loan transaction of Dr.K.Pruthvinath.

3. It was specifically alleged that 1st accused/Badrikrishnaswami was the Executive Director, Finance and Accounts Department of the defacto complainant between 2011 till 2014. At that time, Dr.K.Pruthvinath was authorized signatory for the cheques. They both in connivance had misused the cheque bearing No.003708 pertaining to the bank account at HDFC bank maintained by the defacto complainant. Badrikrishnaswami in connivance with Dr.K.Pruthvinath have committed misrepresentation with intent to cheat by issuing the said cheque to M/s.Paceman for the fraudulent transaction.

4. Based on this complaint, a case has been registered in F.I.R.No.32 of 2019 on the file of 1st respondent police, for the offences under Section 408 and

420 of I.P.C.

Crl.O.P.No.2948 of 2019

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/

Badrikrishnaswami (in Crl.O.P.No.2948 of 2019) submitted that, from the complaint, it appears that the cheque drawn by 2nd accused Dr.K.Pruthvinath from relates to the bank account maintained by defacto complainant. The said cheque for Rs.12,00,000/- has been issued by Dr.K.Pruthvinath, to discharge the personal loan availed by Dr.K.Pruthvinath. The present complaint has been lodged presuming that, the said cheque issued by Dr.K.Pruthvinath to M/s.Paceman (3rd accused) was given to the 2nd accused by Badrikrishnaswami (1st accused). While, 1st accused/petitioner was working as an Executive Director in the defacto complainant's company during the period 2011 and 2014 and entrusted with the cheque book by the complainant.

Crl.O.P.No.2946 of 2019

6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/2nd accused/Dr.K.Pruthvinath (in Crl.O.P.No.2946 of 2019) submitted that, Dr.K.Pruthvinath, availed personal loan from M/s.Paceman, (3rd accused) and he has discharged the said loan and as on the date there is no due payable to M/s.Paceman. As far as the said cheque and the statutory notice issued by M/s.Paceman concern, it has been suitably replied. The signature found in the cheque is not his signature and issuance of the said cheque is denied. The corporate drawer (defacto complainant) and its authorized signatory (Dr.K.