AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Bali, J.
V.P. Malhotra, an exDirector of M/s Unison Textiles Pvt. Ltd., along with Sanjeev Malhotra, exDirector of M/s. Unison Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and the Company itself have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the complaint filed by the respondent P.S. Taneja, Manager, Syndicate Bank, Ludhiana under Sections 405, 407, 408 and 420 read with Sections 34 & 120B I.P.C. as also the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana be quashed. Notice of this petition was given to the respondent who chose not to appear on 6.7.1994. The order recorded on the said date reads thus :
"The respondent has been served but he has not chosen to put in appearance. Admitted.
Further proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana are directed to be stayed."
After admission, the matter came up for hearing today and the respondent P.S. Taneja has chosen not to appear today as well, nor is any one representing him in the matter. There is no choice in the matter except to treat the contents of the petition as true being not controverted.
It is pleaded that the petitioners obtained a loan from the Syndicate Bank way back in 1986. The limit sanctioned was enhanced in 1990 and once again in 1993. However, since there were financial crisis with the petitionercompany M/s. Unison Textile Pvt. Ltd., it went into liquidation and was actually wound up by an order passed by the Company Judge on 15.10.1993. The Bank, with a view to recover its dues, has already taken possession of the premises and in liquidation proceedings, it would get rateable proceeds of the sale of the premises. The bank has already filed a civil suit for recovery of its dues, which on accounts of company proceedings, had been transferred to this Court.
In view of the facts that have been noticed above, it is argued that there could not be a case of cheating or misappropriation by the petitioners. At the most, it was a case of nonreturn of the loan which provided adequate remedies and which remedies have already been taken by the respondentBank.
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that no case under Sections 405, 407, 408 and 420 read with Sections 34 & 120B I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners. Reading of the complaint would at the most clothe the respondentBank with the remedy to proceed against the petitioners for recovery of the loan which proceedings, as referred to above, have already been initiated and are likely to culminate in the near future. That being the situation, the complaint and the summoning order against the petitioners are quashed.
JUDGMENT accordingly.