Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Can Bank Financial Services Ltd. vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 April, 2010
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.19140 of 1998
M/S CAN BANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD UNIT CANSTAR C.G.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR A.PRABHAKAR KINI, „UMA
MAHESH‟, M.M.CHOTANI CROSS ROAD, MAHIM (WEST) BOMBAY-
400016, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT "KAREEM TOWERS" 19/5 &
19/6 CUNNIGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-
560052.........ACCUSED.........PETITIONER
Versus
1. STATE OF BIHAR
2. KRISHNA KUMAR UPADHYAY SON OF LATE PARAS NATH
UPADHAYA
3. M.V. NALINAKSHI UPADHYAY W/O SRI K.K. UPADHAYAY, R/O
B-7 PATRAKAR NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA-
800020....OPPOSITE PARTIES.
-----------
FOR THE PETITIONER -MR.R.K.P. SINGH, ADV MR. AJAY KUMAR SINHA, ADV FOR THE STATE - MR. LALA KAILASH BIHARI PD.APP
-----------
5. 09-Apr-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Complainant.
2. Petitioner is a company and it has been made an accused as a company along with some other individuals in Complaint Case No. 210(c )/1996 filed by the complainant, O.P. No.2 and 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance dated 29.3.1996 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna whereby cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 403,409,411,467,468 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioner and five other 2 accused persons.
3. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no allegation against the petitioner- company in the complaint petition except that it expressed its inability to accept the request of the complainant to register 3400 units Canstar capital shares in the name of complainant no.2 who is wife of complainant no.1 on the plea that some other persons had submitted all the required papers and had to be registered in their name unless the complainant could produce an injunction order or judgment from a competent civil court. It has been submitted that the allegations do not show any mens rea on the part of the company and no criminal offence is made out against the petitioner-company. It was further pointed out from Annexure-8 that the complainant no.1 had filed a Title Suit No.85 of 1996 in the Court of Sub-Judge-X, Patna for a declaration that he is the real owner and holder of the units in question but the claim of the complainant was not accepted and the suit was dismissed after considering the claim on merits.
4. On a careful perusal of the complaint petition and the judgment contained in Annexure-8, there is 3 no escape from the conclusion that the basis of the complaint petition that complainants are the real owners of the concerned units does not exist any more. It is also clear from the complaint petition that no dishonest intention or any kind of motive has been alleged against the petitioner-company so as to constitute any of the offences in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussions, this application is allowed and the proceeding of the criminal case in question in so far as it relates to the petitioner- company is hereby quashed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) perwez