Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 481 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of cheque - failure to disclose the material fact related to inter-corporate loan - cheating under Section 420 of IPC - Petitioner being director of the company - HELD THAT - The petitioner alongwith R.C. Bagrodia and B.K. Ametha represented Accused Company and approached the complainant in June 1996 at Complainant's Registered Office in New Delhi and requested the complainant for inter-corporate deposit of ₹ 25 Lakhs and did not disclose the fact that the Accused Company has already undergone into winding up proceedings. However, they misrepresented the fact that the Accused Company is financially sound and the post dated cheque issued to the Complainant in lieu of the Loan amount will be honoured in the due course. The contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was neither a Director nor held a responsible position in the accused company for conducting day to day affairs of the accused company loses its significance as the petitioner was in fact President of the Accused Company and had written the aforesaid letter to the Complainant just 4 days after the alleged meeting happened. The Court below after going through evidence supported by direct evidence of CW1 took cognizance of offence under Section 420/34 IPC. This Court find no ground to interfere with Summoning Order - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Summoning Order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenged by the petitioner against the order passed by Ld. MM-02, South District, Saket District Court, Delhi in C.C. No. 69A/1 under Section 420/34 IPC. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to Summoning Order The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenges the Summoning Order dated 26.04.2003, where the petitioner, accused No.4, contests being made an accused in the complaint filed by Apollo Finance Limited. The complaint alleged that the accused persons, including the petitioner, concealed the fact of winding up proceedings against the company while obtaining a loan, leading to accusations of fraud and cheating. Issue 2: Arguments of the Petitioner The petitioner, through Senior Counsel Mr. Ramesh Gupta, argued that he was not a director of the company at the time of the alleged events related to the loan transaction. It was contended that the Summoning Order lacked substance, as there was no evidence implicating the petitioner in the loan transaction. Reference was made to various legal judgments to support the argument that the Summoning Order was vague and lacked material. Issue 3: Respondent's Counter-arguments The Respondent, through their Counsel, argued that the petitioner, as the President of the company, misrepresented the financial status of the company to the complainant, thereby inducing the complainant to part with a significant sum of money. It was contended that the Summoning Order was justified based on the allegations of misrepresentation and fraud against the petitioner. Issue 4: Examination of Evidence The complaint and the statement of CW1 Navneet Prabhakar, an authorized representative of the complainant company, formed the basis for the Summoning Order. The evidence suggested that the accused persons, including the petitioner, approached the complainant for a loan without disclosing the company's ongoing winding up proceedings, leading to allegations of dishonesty and fraud. Issue 5: Court's Decision The Court upheld the Summoning Order dated 26.04.2003, emphasizing that the petitioner's position as the President of the company was crucial in establishing his involvement in the alleged fraud. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's argument that he was not directly responsible for the affairs of the company at the time of the loan transaction. The Court dismissed the petition and directed the parties to appear before the concerned Court on a specified date. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, examination of evidence, and the Court's decision regarding the challenge to the Summoning Order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
|