Telangana High Court
Datla Sree Rama Raju vs P. Kumar Srinivas Varma on 2 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6881 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 (A.3) in FIR No. 579 of 2024 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 420, 509, 354, 506, 120-b, 347, 423, 357 r/w.Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C.').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent- defacto complainant gave a complaint stating that he is the founder of M/s.Super Surfaces India Pvt. Ltd. ("Company") which was incorporated on 14.07.2014, involved in the business of Luxury Texture Paints Supply & Application. The complainant was introduced to accused Nos.1 and 2 through accused No.6 for the purpose of investment in the complainant's company. A.1 has invested an amount of Rs.3 Crores and was allotted 20% of complainant's company shares. Thereafter, A.1 has further invested an amount of Rs.4 Crores for an additional 25% share in the complainant's company shares. Unknowingly, 2 the complainant was made to sign a share subscription-cum- share holders agreement without favourable grounds and Vishnu Vardhan (A.1) with the help of Datla Rama Raju, Auditor of the company ensured that certain unilateral rights were included in his favour. As a result of the said agreement, Vishnu Vardhan became owner of 45% shares of the company. Immediately after acquiring 45% equity in the company, A.1 started acting in a very highhanded and erratic manner and started taking unilateral decisions in diverting the company's funds and several other actions that were contrary to corporate governance. On 09.12.2021 the complainant reached out A.1 and Rama Raju, to set up a meeting to discuss and negotiate their exit from the company in good faith. A.1 then suggested that all the parties to meet at ITC Kohinoor on 10.12.2021. On 10.12.2021, to discuss and close the issue, the complainant met A.1 and A.3 to discuss their unlawful and high handed action. Instead of admitting their wrongful deeds, A.1 and A.3 started abusing him in filthy language and also threatened him and his family with dire consequences to immediately transfer his equity to them and walk out from the company. They further threatened him not to involve in the affairs of his own company. A.1 used most abusive and threatening language stating that he 3 is from Pulivendula faction background and has a gun at his home and he is not afraid to use it. They also threatened that the complainant's family consisting of his mother and sister, would not be spared. Later pending civil proceedings in C.P.No.64 of 2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the accused filed a false and baseless complaint with P.S.Madhapur which was registered as FIR No.105 of 2022 with all false and concocted allegations of kidnapping, extortion, criminal breach of trust etc. On 14.03.2022, A.1 and others have called his family and friends including Ms.Durga Deepthi, Ms.K.Anuroopa and Ms. Anusha Raj to their office to arrive at a compromise regarding the dispute between them. Upon their arrival, their phones were taken away, they were confined to the office and not allowed to step out. They were in the office from 12.00 p.m to 6.00 a.m., in the morning, against their will and they were not allowed to leave the office until they agreed to convince the complainant to settle by transferring his shares and personal properties for no consideration. They were put under severe pressure and threat of outraging the modesty, harassment and abuse, if they do not succumb to their demands. Left with no other option and to ensure their safety, agreed to transfer his shares and properties for no monetary 4 consideration. They also signed the memorandum of compromise by way of which various assets belonging to him were transferred to the company for no consideration and was put under severe coercion and was forced to hand over all his assets, properties, company shares to Vishnu Vardhan. Due to the criminal actions of Vishnu Vardhan, Malkireddy Veerabhadra Reddy, Datla Sri Rama Raju, N.Nani Raju @ Nani, V. Rama Krishna Raju, P.Ravi Varma, Vinay Rao Voleti and their associates Shiva Kumar Nunna and Hanumantha Rao, despite having forcefully and under coercion taken his shares in the company and properties without any consideration and made him resign from the company. A.1 and A.3 continued to harass and threaten the complainant, his family and friends for additional payment of Rs.2 Crores in cash out of fear and threat he and his friends borrowed some money from various sources and put together Rs.1 Crore was paid to Rama Raju with the sole intention to protect their safety. These are the allegations leveled against A.1 to A.9 and the petitioner herein is A.3.
3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/defacto complainant and Sri S.Ganesh, 5 learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent- State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the specific allegation is against A.1. The allegation against the petitioner is that he in collusion with A.1 has hoodwinked the complainant in signing a share subscription-cum-share holder agreement and all the allegations made are only to convert the civil dispute into a criminal case, only for the purpose of settlement and compromise. The primary allegation is that petitioner along with A.1 has hoodwinked the complainant in signing the share subscription-cum-share holder agreement with unfavourable terms leading to unilateral rights in favour of A.1, is totally false. The petitioner is no way related to solicitation of document nor petitioner had any say in terms of conditions. The said share subscription-cum-share holder agreement was signed by A.1, complainant and his wife. But she is not aggrieved by the said agreement. Though there is a clause in the Share holder agreement for arbitration, the petitioner has not proceeded for arbitration. The allegations leveled against the petitioner is of the year 2021 and no reason is forthcoming from the complainant as to why he has not 6 prosecuted the petitioner then and there itself, if he was so aggrieved.
5. The FIR is registered in violation of the judgment in Lalitha Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and others 1 as no enquiry was conducted by the police before registering the FIR. The petitioner herein is in the profession of accountancy and has no share or personal interest in the affairs or transactions in the complainant's company. There are no grounds to proceed with the case. The ingredients for the offence under Sections 420, 386 and 354 of I.P.C does not attract to the petitioner when the complainant allegedly appointed eight new Directors in violation of Share holders agreement and proposed to conduct board meeting on 23.12.2021 to seek board's approval to remove A.1 as the Director of company with 45% share holding, A.1 approached NCLT by filing C.P.No.64 of 2021 and the NCLT by its order dated 22.12.2021, granted order in favour of A.1 and against the complainant directing the complainant not to remove A.1 from the Board of Directors and the said order remains unchallenged by the complainant till today. The issue between 1 (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1 7 accused and complainant is already pending adjudication before the competent civil Court in an arm twisting manner and in order to settle the score with A.1, the present complaint is filed.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, time and again reiterated that violation of terms and conditions of contract cannot attract criminal prosecution. In Inder Mohan Goswami Vs State of Uttaranchal 2, it is observed that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not to be used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused as that of illegal attempts made in this case. Further, the petitioner herein is one of the witnesses in the complaint lodged by A.1 against the complainant.
7. The allegation made against the petitioner is only his presence and there was no property transfer in the name of this petitioner to constitute the offence under Section 386 of I.P.C. Learned counsel further contended that as the incident occurred in the year 2021-22, petitioner is no way concerned with the same and his alternative prayer is that as the offence 2 (2007) 12 SCC 1 8 under Section 386 of I.P.C., does not attract to the petitioner, he prayed the Court to direct the police to issue Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that petitioner along with others filed W.P.No.15978 of 2024. It is not a civil dispute, there is severe threat to the life of family members of the complainant and out of fear the personal properties of complainant were transferred in the name of A.1. As such, it requires investigation.
9. On behalf of the State learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and an amount of Rs.1 Crore was transferred in the name of petitioner which constitutes an offence under Section 386 of I.P.C. Hence, the petitioner is not even entitled to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and prayed the Court to dismiss this petition.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective counsel, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the averments do not constitute offence under Section 386 of I.P.C, against this petitioner, as the properties are transferred 9 in the name of A.1 and A.2. The petitioner is not a signatory to the MOU and not a party to the said MOU, whereas the complainant would submit that writ petition filed by the petitioner shows that he is filing writ petition on behalf of A.1, A.2 and other accused and that there is transfer of amount in the name of petitioner which shows the involvement of petitioner.
11. As seen from the record, in the complaint it is mentioned that other accused along with the petitioner harassed and threatened the complainant, his family and friends for additional payment of Rs.2 Crores in cash. Out of fear and threat the complainant and his friends borrowed money from various sources and paid Rs.1 Crore to Rama Raju who is representing Mr. Vishnu Vardhan. The statement of Lw.1 shows that when they were called to Anthra Info Solutions Private Limited, petitioner is also present along with N. Nani Raju @ Nani, Veerabhadra Reddy, Rama Krishna, Shiva Rama Krishna and their advocates. Lw.2 also revealed the name of petitioner in his statement when they threatened the family members of the complainant.
10
12. The statement of witnesses shows that this petitioner along with other accused threatened the complainant, abused him in filthy language and also threatened to foist prostitution case against Durga Deepthi, Anuroopa and Anusha. Due to fear, they signed blank cheque and also on MOU which shows the prima-facie allegation and involvement of petitioner in the said transaction. As the matter is still under investigation, the proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No.579 of 2024 cannot be quashed at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date :02.07.2024 Rds