The petitioner has filed the above petition to call for the records relating to STR.No.1930 of 1999 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor and quash the same.
2. The respondent's/complainant's case is that the complainant/Vijaya Bank is a body corporate and constituted under the Banking Companies Act. The complainant states that A1, Mr.Prabhat Kothari, having cash credit account facilities with the complainant bank in the name and style of Riddhi and Siddhi Industries and in cash credit account No.31/98, and he had money transactions with the complainant's bank. The 1st accused was having business dealing with the 2nd accused, Mr. Ranjith Kothari of M/S Ranjith Commercial Company, Coonoor. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are brothers. A1 has collected a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- by cheque in favour of his company M/s.Riddhi and Siddhi Industries, dated 13.1.1999, vide cheque No.019959 from A2 Company, M/s.Ranjith Commercial Company Bank account M/s.State Bank of Travancore, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore in Account No.2289 and again the 1st accused has collected a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by cheque in favour of his Company, M/s.Riddhi and Siddhi Industries dated 13.1.1999, from A2 Company.
3. The accused No.1 has approached the Complainant's bank and requested them to purchase the above mentioned two cheques for his Company business as he urgently needed money, and so the Complainant purchased the said two cheques for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, and the same was paid to the 1st accused. The complainant submits that they had deposited the above two cheques for money collection on 12.02.1999 to A2 Company bank account. But both cheques were returned uncleared stating "insufficient funds". On request of the 1st accused, the complainant deposited the cheque again on 16.4.1999. This time also the cheque was returned. So, the 1st accused has done the above act deliberately, knowingly, intentionally to cheat the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 26.4.1999, and called upon the accused to make payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. The accused sent a reply and denied the liability. Even after serving the notice, the accused have neglected to pay the amount. Hence, the complainant bank initiated the said complaint under Negotiable Instrument Act. Supporting their case, two documents were filed and three witnesses have been mentioned.
4. The learned Magistrate has taken the case on his file under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Further, the complainant bank has filed detailed statements and resisted the quash petition stating that the accused had played the acts of fraud and cheating of the bank. The complainant has also pointed out a citation of Himachal Pradesh High Court in "Munish Mehra ..Vs.. State Bank of India", reported in (DCR 1999, Page 272).
5. The 1st and 2nd accused had colluded with each other and committed the offence.
6. The petitioner contended that during August 2005, when the petitioner was in Coimbatore, responding to summons issued by the II Additional District Judge/Special Judge, CBI Cases, Coimbatore as a witness to depose in C.C.Nos.2 and 3 of 2001, the petitioner came to know about the fact of Criminal Cases having been filed against one K. V. Suresh, the then bank manager of Vijaya Bank and two others including the petitioner's younger brother, Ranjith Kumar Kothari for the offences under
Section 120-B,420,468,471 IPC and
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, the petitioner has made various allegations, against the complainant, stating that accused No.2, Ranjith Kumar Kothari with the connivance of the bank manager had impersonated the petitioner and forged his signature and started bank account in the name of Raddhi and Siddhi Industries in Cash Credit account No 31/1998 in Vijaya Bank. A1, the then manager of Vijaya Bank appears to have purchased the cheques presented by A2 Ranjith Kumar impersonating the petitioner and caused a wrongful gain for themselves and wrongful loss to the bank. It was found that the Bank Manager had acted in collusion with the second respondent and allowed the opening of a bank account without following the procedure prescribed. The Criminal proceedings were initiated against the accused petitioner for having committed the offence of Criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery etc., by creating bank accounts in the petitioners name in the Coonoor branch and caused wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to the accused. Further, the petitioner has resisted the entire complaint.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the public money has been looted on the said cheque transactions. Loss has been caused to the bank/public, in this regard. The Court views that the above case has to be necessarily tried to arrive at correct conclusion, in the interest of public. Hence, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the proceedings in STR.No.1930 of 1999 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor.
C.S.KARNAN, J mra
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
30.07.2009 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mra To
1. Vijaya Bank represented by its Branch Manager, Coonoor , Nilgiris District.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Crl.O.P.No.32609 of 2005