1 WP : 1279/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1279 OF 2010 K. Sitaram & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. CFL Capital Financial Services .... Respondents & Anr. Mr. Bhave i/by M/s Bhave & Co. for petitioners. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 7th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeks quashing of Criminal Case No.0800009/SW/08 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai and for setting aside the order dated 25th January 2008, by which process was issued against all the persons accused in the complaint. The petitioners are the original accused nos.2 and 3. Petitioner no.1 was working as Managing Director with accused No.1-State Bank of Travancore during the period 11th May 2006 to 30th June 2007. Petitioner no. 2 worked with accused No.1- Bank as the Deputy General Manager during the period from January 2 WP : 1279/2010 2005 to November 2006. 2. Respondent no.1- Company filed the complaint herein alleging offence punishable under Section 409 and 418 read with 120 Indian Penal Code against accused no.1- Bank, the petitioners herein, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.- accused no. 5 and 3 directors of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. as accused no. 5 to 7. Subsequently i.e. on 11th September 2008, respondent no. 1 withdrew the complaint against original accused nos. 5 to 7. In the complaint, respondent no. 1 states that it’s a company carrying on business of financial services including extension of finance facilities under its various leasing, hire purchasing and bill discounting facilities. Accused no.1- Bank had in December 1995 sanctioned loan of Rs. 720/- lacs by way of cash credit facility and working capital demand loan respectively, totalling to Rs.900/- lacs. For that purpose, it had executed various documents in favour of the bank. As respondent no. 1 was unable to pay its dues to the bank, the bank had filed recovery proceedings in the D.R.T., wherein a partial decree in the sum of Rs.812.26 lacs had been passed. In the said proceedings, respondent no.4, bank filed an application for substituting accused no. 1- bank claiming the dues to accused no. 1, bank and also.... claimed by accused no. 1 in the immovable properties, mortgage in favour of accused no. 1- Bank. The complainant claimed that no notice of the alleged assignment agreement dated 29th March 2006 had been given to the 3 WP : 1279/2010 complainant. On 11th January 2007, the complainant- company entered into Deed of Assignment with accused no. 4- bank, wherein all the dues of defaulter namely “Ravishankar Industries Pvt. Ltd.” of more than 32 Crores were assigned to accused no.4. Under the agreement, it was agreed that an amount received over and above Rs.90 lacs from the company would be shared equally between the complainant-company and accused no.4. Thereafter accused no.4-Company withdrew the proceedings filed by the complainant-company under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against the Ravishankar Industries Pvt. Ltd. It also settled the dues of Rs.32 crores and the amount of Rs.225/- lacs in March 2007, without giving any information as to the terms of settlement and the mode of payment. It is the allegation of the complainant that the complainant being informed that the deed of assignment dated 29th March 2006 of/all its dues to respondent no.1, bank to respondent no. 4, bank, it would not have entered into the assignment agreement on 11th January 2007 with accused no.4, bank, because the same worked completely towards its ..disadvantage... It is alleged that the suppression of facts and surreptitious execution of the deed of assignment dated 29th March 2006 was deliberately done behind the back of the complainant-company, with the dishonest intention to induce the complainant-company and thereby make wrongful losses to the complainant-company and deceive it. The complainant-company 4 WP : 1279/2010 has already filed criminal complaint bearing no. 18/SW/07 against accused no.4- bank and its responsible officers which is pending in the Court of 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra in respect of the specific offences committed by them. 3. The petitioners herein claimed that they are not concerned with the transaction of either of the two assignments. According to petitioner no.1, he has joined accused no.1, bank on 11th May 2006 i.e. subsequent to the assignment deed dated 29th March 2006. He was, however, admittedly working with the bank on 11th January 2007, when the complainant-company entered into the deed of assignment with accused no.4. As regards petitioner no. 2, though he was signatory to the deed of assignment dated 29th March 2006, he contends that he was no more in services of accused no.1- bank on the date on which deed of assignment dated 11th January 2007 was executed by the complainant and hence he claims to have no connection whatsoever with the offence alleged. Since petitioner no.2 was the signatory to the assignment, which related to the assignment of the dues of the complainant- company by the accused no.1, bank to accused no. 4- bank behind the back of the complainant-company, it cannot be said that he is in consent with the offence alleged to the complaint. As regards petitioner no.1, he was admittedly in employment of accused no. 1- company at the time of execution of deed of assignment by the complainant of the dues of one 5 WP : 1279/2010 Ravindra Industries Pvt. Ltd. in favour of accused no.4, bank. On bare reading of the complaint, the petitioners seem to be connected to the offence alleged. The petitioners, therefore, have not made any case whatsoever for quashing of the complaints. Hence, the petition is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)