TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs, the Respondent No. 2 AFGIS instituted a complaint case against the Petitioner No. 3 PAAM Pharmaceuticals (Delhi) Ltd. [`Company'] and its Directors and senior management personnel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(`NI Act') and 415/420 IPC. Even before a summoning order could be issued in this complaint, the AFGIS instituted another complaint on 24th February 1999 against the same parties in respect of the dishonour of two cheques bearing Nos. 283825 for ₹ 4.5 lakhs and No. 283826 for Rs. One crore under Section 138 NI Act and 415/420 IPC. 3. A summoning order was passed on the second complaint on 23rd September 1999 by the learned MM. On the first complaint a separate summoning order was passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by not providing the current transfer deeds duly signed by the holders. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , the subsequent complaint on the same set of facts was bad in law. He also relies upon the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala 2001 II AD (Cr.) S.C. 513 to the effect that if on the same transaction a second FIR could not be registered, then by the same analogy a third complaint also could not have been registered. It is further pointed out that in terms of Clause 8(a)(ii) of the agreement entered into between the parties, the AFGIS was to be issued as security shares 'out of promoters' quota in tradable s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Neither of these complaints makes a reference to the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the Company and the AFGIS concerning latter's investment of ₹ 1 crore in the NCDs of the Company. They make no reference to the clauses of that agreement. 9. The third complaint CC No. 458 of 2001 filed by AFGIS on 25th September 2000 refers to the fact that a sum of Rs. One crore was invested in the Company for issuance of NCDs. This complaint is filed against the Company and the two Petitioners here as well as four others including one Director, and three senior management personnel and the Chartered Accountant of the Company. This time the complaint makes reference to the clauses of the agreement and to the fact that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those who are the parents of the Managing Director of Ganga Automobiles Ltd. in the instant criminal case without regard to their role or participation in the alleged offences with the sole purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating and tyrannising the appellants with criminal prosecution. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Section 406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of the process of law and prosecution against the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
