Telangana High Court
L.Bharath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10384 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners who are accused No.1 and 2 praying the Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2818 of 2020 arising out of FIR bearing No.457 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Cum I Additional Junior civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri.
2. As per the averments the petitioner No.1 along with the defacto complainant have incorporated a company in the name and style of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures in January, 2013 and the company is manufacturing plastic items and containers which is set up in a 7000 sq. ft. Industrial shed and carries out business activities in 6 different states i.e. Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Orissa.
3. Initially the petitioner and defacto complainant along with his mother and one another have entered into the partnership agreement in the year 2013, and the petitioner/ accused No.1 is holding a share of 29% and he had invested 2 SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023 Rs.1,00,00,000/- and also mortgaged two immovable properties of his parents as collateral security in APSFC to raise machinery loan for the company and further submitted that the said partnership deed was duly registered and subsequently there were two amendments made in the partnership deeds dated 15.03.2013 and 13.11.2013, wherein two partners in the partnership deed exited and two new partners were included in the firm.
4. The petitioner No.1/Accused's sister in law i.e. L.Divya has joined as one of the partners and holds 21% share in M/s. Seiko Polyclosures company from 2013 till today, the petitioner and his sister in law hold 50% share in the company and are continuing as managing partner and partner respectively in M/s. Seiko Polyclosures till date and the matter stood thus to divert the business of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures fraudulently the defacto complainant and his family members conspired together and launched a bogus trading company in the name and style of Vishwin Plastic Traders with complainant's brother being the proprietor of the said company.
3
SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023
5. The affairs of the Vishwin Plastic Traders were being carried out in the premises of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures but for namesake they rented a 100 Sq. ft. shutter for official records where it is impossible to maintain stock of tons of raw material and stock of millions of worth finished products in a size of a kiosk. It is further submitted that entire business activities and transactions of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures are being carried out in the name of Vishwin Plastic Traders from the premises M/s.Seiko Polyclosures. But the defacto complainant and his family members have set up this shell company in order to cheat this petitioner No.1 and his sister in law and also to grab their 50% share of profits and submitted that any raw material purchases, production and finished goods sales that take place at M/s. Seiko Polyclosures has to be in the knowledge of the managing partner of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures in order to release money from the company, the petitioner No.1 being the managing partner of the company has to sign the current account cheques without which the banks won't pass the company cheques and to avoid petitioner no.1's sign on the cheques, the defacto complainant and the rest of the family members conspired and launched a shell company for doing 4 SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023 fraudulent economic transactions so as to evade crores of rupees of taxes to government and to grab petitioner and his sister-in-law's 50% share of profits. Though there are no specific allegations against these petitioners in the complaint and FIR was registered without any preliminary investigation and there are no specific events mentioned against A1 to A5 in the said complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and no proofs have been placed to show that the petitioners have threatened or criminally intimidated the defacto complainant. Therefore, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2818 of 2020.
6. Heard Sri B.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though there are no allegations against these petitioners the police registered a false case. As such, prayed the Court to quash the criminal petition.
5
SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there are serious allegations against the accused and as such, it cannot be quashed at this stage and if there are no allegations, the trial Court will conduct the trial and truth will come out after the trial only. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9. It is pertinent to note that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
10. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record and in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 6 SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023 cited supra, the charge sheet filed against A1 to A5 stating that on 13.11.2013 one of the new partner L.Divya, who is sister in law of A1 was entered into the partnership deed and one of the partner wanted to exit and amicable settlements arrived before the elders and the said Bharat Kumar filed a case against the complainant for which he approached II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail, hence complainant surrendered and released on bail. After releasing on bail, complainant sent legal notice to L.Bharath and Divya on 09.08.2018 for arbitration, after receipt of said notice A1 called Bharath Kumar and threatened him to vacate the factory and hand over to him. On 17.08.2018 at around 18.20 hours accused Nos.1 to 5 criminally trespassed into the complainant factory and threatened his family members and as such, A1 to A5 committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with 34 of IPC. These averments show that these petitioners trespassed into the factory, though counsel for petitioner argued that there is no proof to show that these petitioners trespassed into the land it is not the stage to consider that, it requires trial to prove the allegations. 7
SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023
11. The allegations against these petitioners are for the offences under Sections 448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and the statements prima-facie shows that the galata took place in the factory and that there are disputes in between them with regard to the partnership and maintenance of the family. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the allegations does not constitute the offence, as such it cannot be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________ K.SUJANA, J Date: 08.04.2024 BV