Telangana High Court
Vijay Kumar And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.720 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filedunder Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 451 of the Companies Act (for short 'the Act') and Sections 464, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 and his wife incorporated a company namely M/s.Shreemukh Namitha Homes Private Limited on 19.08.2015 under the Act. Accused Nos.1 and 2 appointed as directors of the said company on 03.09.2016 and 27.08.2015, respectively. As per the altered articles of association of the Company dated 02.11.2021, during the Annual General Meeting held on 30.11.2021, the said company proposed resolution for re-appointment of accused Nos.1 and 2 as directors of the said company. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 were not re-appointed as directors of the said 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.720 of 2023 company as majority of the shareholders including respondent No.2 and his wife voted against the resolution. Thereafter, it came to light that without the knowledge of respondent No.2 and his wife, who are the 75% shareholders of the said company, accused Nos.1 and 2 illegally appointed Ms.Yerram Vanitha and Mr.Kaleshwar Vasgi as directors of the said Company by surreptitiously conducting Extra Ordinary General Meeting on 01.12.2021 and uploaded the same with forged documents in Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Hence, a case was registered in C.C.No.58 of 2022 before the C.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri S.Ravi, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are civil disputes between the parties, for which, several civil cases are pending before the concerned Civil Court. He further submitted that though the disputes between the parties are civil 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.720 of 2023 in nature, respondent No.2 filed criminal case only to misuse the process of law. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there are grave allegations against the petitioner which requires trial. Hence, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties, this Court has perused the material available on record. The main allegations are that the petitioners made false statements before the statutory authority including Ministry of Corporate affairs apart from illegally appointing third parties through surreptitious board resolutions only to usurp the management of the said company. Further, due to civil disputes between the parties, the petitioners filed civil suits O.S.No.55 of 2022 before the III Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally; O.S.No.99 of 2022 before the XV Additional District Judge, Kukatpally and C.P.No. 10 of 2022 before the National Company Law Tribunal. It is evident that this Court vide orders dated 08.06.2022 in C.R.P.No.1126 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.720 of 2023 of 2022 allowed the revision petition and passed orders in favour of respondent No.2 by setting aside the interim orders passed in O.S.No.99 of 2022. It is pertinent to note that to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. SurendraKori 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."1
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.720 of 2023
8. In the case on hand, the allegations are that without any authority the petitioners appointed directors to the said company and uploaded the same in the Ministry of Corporate affairs with forged documents. This Court cannot conduct mini trial while dealing with the petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as such, the allegations requires trial. In view of the same and the law laid down by the Apex Court in SurendraKori (supra), since the offences alleged against the petitioners are serious in nature, it requires trial in order to elicit the true facts of the case. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioners and the same are liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.06.2024
gms