Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of the complainant / present respondent is that Dena Bank floated a public issue of 8 crores equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at a premium of Rs. 17/- at a price of Rs. 27/- each aggregating to Rs. 216/- crores. The issue of equity share was being made pursuant to the sanction of Government of Page 167 India and in consultation of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide its letter F No. 001/26/2003-BOA dated October 19, 2004 under Section 3(2B)(c) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, as amended and the resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors of the Bank on October 23, 2003 and the shareholders of the Bank at the EGM held on November 25, 2003. It is alleged by the complainant that in the prospectus published for the purpose of Public Issue, some false and misleading information were given with regard to sanctioned limits, the dues and Export Bills of the Company, namely, Nagami Nicotines Pvt. Ltd., of which the complainant is the Director, and thus the accused persons have committed offences. It is further alleged that the accused persons conspired with each other to commit the offences and, therefore, they have committed offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is also the case of the complainant that accused No. 1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also alleged that the accused persons furnished false information, statements and evidence and thereby they have committed the offence under Sections 191, 192, 177 and 181 of I.P.C. It is also alleged that by making such false statements in the prospectus as regards the complainant's company, its dues and the litigations pending, the complainant has been defamed and therefore, the accused persons have committed offence of defamation as defined under Section 499 of I.P.C., and punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. It is also the case of the complainant that the Bank maliciously filed a claim before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, without any justifiable cause by fabricating false evidence. It is also the case of the complainant that he has filed a Civil Suit against the Bank in Baroda for recovery of Rs. 993.47 lacs towards damages for non submission of Export Bills and non releasing of the sanctioned limits. It is also the case of the complainant that in the prospectus false information has been furnished that the suit is pending before DRT, Ahmedabad whereas the suit has been filed in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara. It is also the case of the complainant that the accused No. 12 had made certain false affirmation and verification and has also fabricated evidence for the same and in the same manner accused No. 14 has without any authority signed and affirmed some statements. The gravamen of the allegation of the complainant is that the Bank has filed a false claim against the company by virtue of which the business of the complainant got seriously affected and his reputation in the society has got tarnished and thereby he has been defamed by the Bank.

7. So far as alleged offence under Section 177 of I.P.C., is concerned, Mr. Anandjiwala submitted that offence Section 177 of I.P.C., is an offence relating to furnishing false information. Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such furnishes, as true, the information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence is said to have committed offence under Section 177 of I.P.C. Mr. Anandjiwala has submitted that this section contains two branches. The first branch, whoever being legally bound... or with both- deals with simple case of person who being legally bound to furnish true information to the public servant furnishes false information to him. So far as this case is concerned the accused are only concerned with the first branch. Now, if it is a case of the complainant that the offence under Section 177 has been committed, then, who can file a complaint for the same. It is mandatory in view of the provision of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code that a complaint for the offence under Section 177 of I.P.C., has to be a complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. How can the police under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, investigate into the allegations of offence under Section Page 169 177 of I.P.C., when there is no complaint regarding the same by the public servant concerned or of some other public servant.

17. Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate is appearing on behalf of the respondent ?" original complainant. An affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No. 2. Written arguments under affidavit were filed by the respondent No. 2 and the same are taken on record. At the out set, Mr. Tirmizi has submitted that the petitioners have intentionally omitted to produce documents annexed as Annexure 3 to 11 with the original complaint, third page of notice dated 25.1.2005 annexed as Annexure-B to the petition and second page of reply of the Bank dated 5.2.2005 to the notice of the complainant annexed as Annexure ?" C to the petition to mislead and misguide this Court by misrepresentation and to suppress their prima facie criminal offences for obtaining stay of operation and execution of the impugned order dated 28.2.2005 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara and committed offence under Section 175 of the I.P.C. He has further submitted that Bank dishonestly misused false, fabricated and fraudulent documents as submitted in para-3A of the original complaint to file so called original application before the DRT, Ahmedabad on 1.5.2001 under the bogus pretext of the recovery of its so called dues with Page 173 malicious ulterior motive to cover up its criminal offences, to stall the complaint and claim of the Company before various forums and authorities and to avoid its responsibility and liability as a holder for a value for the amount of illegally withheld export bills to the Company being conspiracy under Section 120A of the I.P.C. Mr. Tirmizi has further submitted that the modus operandi of the Bank to misuse the power by giving so called demand notice of one day to the Company being so called borrower is to abuse the RDB Act, 1993 for filing the said so called original application in violation of the natural justice for making false claim under Section 209 by giving false and fabricated statements, information and evidences under Sections 177, 181, 191, 192, 196, 199, 200, 470 and 471 of I.P.C., and the said so called original application is pending for the adjudication for its dismissal as the jurisdiction of the DRT, Ahmedabad is debarred in absence of debt and cause of action and also the so called original application being illegal, mala fide and fraudulent.