TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 1385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 2011 whereby the petition filed by the Appellants Under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No. 1461/2010 registered by Changanasserry Police Station against the Appellants Under Sections 417, 418, 420, 120B and 34 Indian Penal Code was dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts in brief are as follows: The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2011 is a Limited company of which Appellants Venkataraman in Criminal Appeal No. 2344 of 2011 and Appellant Mani Prasad in Criminal Appeal No. 2343 of 2011 were Directors and the Appellant Chandrasekhran in Criminal Appeal No. 2342 of 2011 was the promoter. The Company availed a loan from the Industrial Investment Bank of India and Respondent No. 3 herein/co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 for the alleged offences Under Sections 417, 418, 420, 120B and 34 Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint that the loan transaction of the company with IIBI was settled with the efforts of the complainant/Respondent No. 3 herein but the company, Directors and Promoter did not pay him the consultancy fee as promised and they conspired together to deceive the complainant and committed offences as alleged. The company and its Directors filed petitions Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal M.C. No. 220 to 222 of 2011 on the file of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam contending that the understanding between the company and the complainant was that the settlement with the IIBI should be completed by 30.10.2008....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of submissions he relied on the following decisions - Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar and Anr. [(2005) 10 SCC 336]; All Cargo Movers (India) Private Ltd. and Ors. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and Anr. [(2007) 14 SCC 776]; and V.Y. Jose and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. [(2009) 3 SCC 78]. 4. Per contra the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 contended that there is no merit in the contention of the Appellants that the FIR discloses only a civil case or that there is no allegation making out the criminal offence of cheating. It is his further contention that the facts in the present case may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the complainant that by i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is agreeable you may return the duplicate of this letter, duly signed in token of acceptance of the offer. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For Vesa Holdings Private Limited Director I Accord my consent to this assignment. (K.G.S. Nair) 7. It is also not in dispute that the IIBI did not issue any acceptance letter on or before 30.10.2008 with regard to the settlement of disputes of the Appellant company. The 3rd Respondent also did not present the cheque dated 6.8.2008 issued by the Appellant company for encashing a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs. Due to the efforts of the Appellant company IIBI finally agreed and issued letter of acceptance dated 5.1.2009. O....