AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—Heard.
The Petitioners had taken a loan from the Haryana Financial Corporation. Machinery etc. was hypothecated in terms of Clause 6 of the mortgage deed, apart from other security. The said machinery etc. was, however, sold by the Petitioner-debtors. The Haryana Financial Corporation wrote letter dated 6.2.1997, Annexure P.7, alleging that mortgaged property was illegally sold.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that no FIR was registered on that basis butt on 23.8.2001, FIR u/s 420 IPC was registered. It is pointed out that sale of hypothecated property does not amount to an offence u/s 420 IPC, in view of judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in CBI, New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Limited, Calcutta, 1996 (3) RCR 60 (SC). This proposition is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the Corporation.
Accordingly, proceedings in FIR No. 117 dated 23.8.2001 u/s 420 IPC, P.S. Julana, District Jind, are quashed.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners points out that as per his calculation, all the amounts have been paid and the Petitioners are still willing to appear before the concerned authority and settle the accounts. He, however, disputes the claim, which is now being put forward.
It is made clear that the above order will not stand in the way of the Corporation in proceeding against the Petitioners, in accordance with law, after settling the accounts. The Petitioners will appear before the Managing Director of the Corporation on 28.2.2006.
The petition is disposed of.
Petition allowed.