Mr. H.S. Bedi, Mrs. Avneet Bedi and Ms. Bani Bedi vs The State of Karnataka and Others

H.N. Nagamohan Das

In these petitions the petitioners have prayed to quash the order dated 25.02.2012 in PCR No. 68/2012, FIR dated 27.03.2012 in Cr. No. 81/2012 and for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 to return a sum of Rs. 1.96 Crores and other reliefs. Petitioner no. 1 is the husband of petitioner no. 2 and petitioner no. 3 is their daughter. Petitioner no. 1 is the Managing Director and the petitioner no. 2 is the Director of a company called IDEB BUILDCON Private Ltd. According to respondents 3 to 5, petitioners in the month of April 2008 induced them to invest huge sum of money to an extent of Rs. 7 crores plus and guaranteed monthly returns to the tune of nearly Rs. 8.89 lakhs. Thereafter the petitioners avoided their liability with a criminal intention to cheat the respondents. In the circumstances, the respondents lodged a complaint with the police and the same came to be registered in Cr. No. 215/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Aggrieved by this registration of crime against the petitioners, they approached this court in W.P. No. 31454-456/2010 to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 215/2010. During the pendency of W.P. No. 31454-456/2010, there came to be a settlement between the parties as per settlement deed dated 11.11.2010. In terms of this settlement deed, the petitioners issued six postdated cheques towards discharge of their liability. Accordingly, the respondents filed a memo dated 30.11.2010 in W.P. No. 31454-456/2010. This court in terms of the memo disposed W.P. No. 31454-456/2010 vide order dated 5.1.2011 with an observation as under:

It is seen from the petition averments and the pleadings that the controversy leading to these writ petitions is on account of the omission on the part of the petitioners in not setting the dues payable to respondents 5, 6 and 7. In view of the subsequent developments and in the light of the memo filed by respondents 5, 6 and 7 before this court on 30.11.2010 reporting that cheques have been issued in their favour by the petitioner company IDEB Buildcon Private Limited and that subject to the said cheques being honoured, the writ petition may be dismissed. I do not find any need to proceed with these writ petitions nor is there any need for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of the offence alleged hence, in the light of the memo filed by the respondents 5, 6 and 7 on 3011.2010 and taking note of the issued cheques by the company in favour of respondents 5, 6 and 7, these writ petitions are disposed of making it clear that the investigating agency shall take note of this order and close the investigation to avoid wastage of public time.

It would be however open to respondents 5, 6 and 7 to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioners or the IDEB Buildcon Private Limited if the cheques are not honoured.

In view of the order passed in the main matter, Misc. W. 11208/2010 filed for vacating the interim order does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed of as infructuous.

After the disposal of W.P. No. 31454-456/2010 the respondents presented the cheques issued by the petitioners for encashment and they came to be dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds. Consequently, the respondents filed private complaints against the petitioners u/s 200 Cr. P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 138 NI Act in PCR No. 10988/2011, PCR No. 10989/2011 and PCR No. 10990/2011 and they are pending adjudication.

Simultaneously, the respondents filed a private complaint u/s 200 Cr. P.C. in PCR 68/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with section 34 IPC. The jurisdictional Magistrate registered the case recorded the sworn statement and referred the matter to the police for investigation. Now the police have registered a case in Cr. No. 81/2012 and the matter is under investigation. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court to quash the proceedings in PCR No. 68/2012, Cr. No. 81/2012 and for other reliefs.

Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire petition papers.

Sri S.G. Bhagwan, learned counsel for petitioners firstly contend that this court while disposing W.P. Nos. 31454-456/2010 had only reserved liberty to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioners if the cheques are not honoured. For dishonour of cheques respondents have filed private complaint in PCR No. 10988/2011 and connected matter for the offences punishable u/s 138 of NI Act and therefore the present complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with section 34 IPC is not maintainable. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable to me. This court while disposing W.P. Nos. 31454-456/2010 reserved liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law if the cheques are not honoured. Therefore, it is manifest that the respondents were entitled to initiate all legal remedies available to them under law. Initiation of proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 138 N.I. Act is not a bar for initiation of separate proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 IPC. I find no legal infirmity in initiating both the proceedings against the petitioners.

Secondly, it is contended that there is no pleading with regard to inducement and also with regard to misappropriation In the absence of necessary ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 406 and 420 IPC the complaint is liable to be quashed. It is seen from the record that the Magistrate has now referred the matter to the police for investigation. After investigation the police may file a charge sheet, may vomit any of the provisions specified by the respondents and even they may file ''B'' report. At this stage, the Magistrate had only noticed from the averments in the complaint, sworn statement and the documents produced by the respondents, a prima-facie case has been made out. In the circumstances, I find no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Lastly it is contended that the jurisdictional Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence committed an error in referring the matter to the police. When the Magistrate registered the case, recorded the sworn statement and ordered the police for investigation amounts to deemed taking of cognizance of the offence. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.

For the reasons stated above, the petitions are hereby dismissed.