TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 120B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused persons including the two petitioners. 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 919 of 1997 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram (Rohtas) disclosing therein that he was an employee of the civil court and did savings from his salary. He had made a fixed deposit in Swarna Deposit Scheme of M/s. CRB Capital Markets Ltd., Mumbai. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that on 25-9-1996, he had made two deposits of Rs. 10,000 each in the said scheme for one year at 10 per cent per annum. As per the claim of the complainant, the fixed deposits were t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Case No. 919 of 1997 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram (Rohtas) shall remain stayed and since then, the order of stay is continuing. In this case despite valid service of notice, none had appeared at the time of hearing of this petition on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and, accordingly, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State by order dated 28-4-2010, judgment was reserved. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while making a prayer for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 919 of 1997 including the order dated 17-11-1997, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram (Rohtas) submitted that opposite party No. 2, while filing the complaint petition,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Bureau of Investigation started investigating the complaint lodged by the State Bank of India against M/s. CRB Capital Markets Ltd., and petitioner No. 1 was initially arrested by the C.B.I. However, he was released on bail on 17-9-1997. It was submitted that since much prior to the date of maturity of the complainant's deposits, a provisional liquidator was already appointed by the Delhi High Court on 22-5-1997, it was not within the domain of the petitioners to make payment in respect of the deposits made by the complainant. It was further argued that since the liquidation proceeding had already been initiated and a provisional liquidator was appointed much prior to the filing of the present complaint petition, the petitioners cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. From the order dated 22-5-1997, which is at pages 17-19, it is evident that in the said case the Delhi High Court after having satisfied with the averments made in the company petition had appointed the provisional liquidator, who was attached to the Delhi High Court and he was directed to take over all the assets and properties of the company along with the books of account and other documents of the company. In view of the order of the Delhi High Court dated 22-5-1997, it is evident that on the date of maturity of the complainant's deposits, i.e., 23-9-1997, the petitioners were already divested with the power and control over the company in question and its records and, as such, it was not possible for them to refund the complainant'....