http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 6

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 91 of 2000

PETITIONER:

G. SAGAR SURI AND ANR.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF UP. AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/01/2000

BENCH:

S. SAGHIR AHMAD & D. P. WADHWA

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

2000 (1) SCR 417

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated May 6, 1999 of Allahabad

High Court dismissing the application of the appellants filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the ’Code’). By this

application the appellants had sought quashing of the criminal proceedings

pending against them under Section 406/420" of the Indian Penal Code (for

short the TPC) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and

arising out of Case No. 674 of 1997 of Police Station Noida, District

Gautam Budh Nagar.

The First Information Report (FIR No. 517 dated August 17, 1997) was filed

against seven persons including the two appellants by Mr. P.K. Sen Gupta

(respondent No. 2), General Manager, M/s. Phoenix Interna-tional Finance

Ltd., NOIDA (for short, the ’Finance Company’). He al-leged that Ashwani

Suri, G. Sagar Suri (the first appellant) and Sukhvinder Singh contacted

his company on telephone in the first week of June, 1996 with intention to

cheat and commit fraud on him. They had stated that they along with Shalini

Suri, Shama Suri (the second appellant), Charaujit Singh and M.L. Kampani

were the Directors of M/s. Ganga Automobiles Ltd. and that they would come

later for a meeting personally. They had also told that their company Ganga

Automobiles Ltd. was doing good business and that if complainant’s company

could give a loan of Rs. 50,00,000 (Rupees fifty lakh only) to M/s. Ganga

Automobiles Ltd. the loan would be repaid with interest by September 13,

1996. The complainant then alleged that the "above said accused persons

turn by turn continued visiting the applicant’s office" for making request

for grant of loan. Relying on their persuasion but without realising their

malafide and fraudulent intentions, the Finance Company gave Rs. 50,00,000

by means of cheque No. 375453 dated June 19, 1996 drawn on the Punjab &

Siad Bank, New Delhi. Complainant then said "the -accused persons issued

two cheques to the applicant company for repayment of above said money

bearing No. 08-4049 and 84450 both dated 13.9.96 for rupees fifty lakhs

towards payment of principal sum and Rs. 86625 towards payment of interest

respectively and drawn on Corporation Bank", When these cheques were

presented for payment, these were returned dishonoured with the remarks

that sufficient funds were not available. The Finance Company again

contacted the accused persons many times on telephone as well as by writing

letters and asked them to make payment but they failed to do so and even

started avoiding the complainant. However, the accused persons again came

to the office of the Finance Company on January 2, 1997 and asked the

Finance Company six months further time for the payment of the amount as

they said "a mishappening took place with them as a result of which they

are suffering financial constraint". The complainant said he believed their

wordings and the accused again issued two cheques on July 2,1997 for Rs.

5o,86,625 towards principal and Rs. 9,40,008 towards interest. This time

these cheques were drawn on the Grindleys Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 6

and again when presented for payment were returned dishonoured with the

endorsement "insufficient funds". Complainant thus said in his report that

the aforesaid acts of the accused persons were fraudulent and committed

with the common object to cheat the Finance Company. They did not want to

refund the money in any way. He, therefore, requested for legal action

against the accused persons, On the basis of the First informa-tion Report,

the Police registered the case against seven persons, name