Telangana High Court
Mr. Ravi Kumar Daparthi vs The State Of Telangana on 1 March, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.682 and 674 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Criminal Petition No.682 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner / A2 and Criminal Petition No.674 of 2024 is filed by petitioners A3 and A5 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.356 of 2023 dated 20.12.2023 on the file of PS Economic Offences Wing, Team-VIII, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 20.12.2023 at 21:15 hours, the Director of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited by name Mr.Premchand Kolli (de-facto complainant) lodged a report stating that in the year 2015, his son established Maxo Tech Solutions LLC in USA. It was running successfully. In the year 2017, his son's Seniors in Engineering by name Mr.Swamijee Kakarla (A1) and Mr.Ravi Kumar Daparthi (A2) approached his son for funding to develop a new software platform for applicant tracking. After negotiations, his son decided to fund their project. Thus, Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited was incorporated in 2017 at Nandagiri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad with the de-facto complainant as well as A2 as Directors. The accused No.2 appointed Mr.Pasumarthi Ramcharan (A4) in Maxoind Tech Solutions as Talent Acquisition Director. In September 2022, 2 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 the de-facto complainant left for USA along with his wife and returned to India in April, 2023. Taking advantage of his absence, A4 on the instructions of A1 and A2 by colluding with A3 (Mr.M.Upendra Naidu, HR and Accounts Manager of M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC) and A5 (P.Anil Kumar Reddy, Finance Manager of M/s.Oorwin Labs India Private Limited) created a fake and fabricated board meeting resolution dated 08.12.2022 appointing A1 as Additional Director in the complainant's Company without proper quorum. A3 addressed letters to clients misleading them into believing that M/s.Signitives Technologies LLC was a sister company of M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC. A5 uploaded the fraudulent resolution to Registrar of Companies (for short "ROC"), Hyderabad. It resulted in significant financial loss of more than Rupees fifteen crores to M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC. Further A3 and A4 had deleted work e- mails to cover their tracks. The orchestrated plan resulted in the takeover of the companies and within 18 months since January, 2022, approximately 111 consultants from Maxotech Solutions LLC were shifted to Signitives LLC. It had caused a substantial revenue loss of US 12-15 millions dollars and a profit loss of US 2-3 million dollars to Maxotech Solutions LLC.
3. Basing on the said report, the SI of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Team-VIII, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad registered a case in Crime No.356 of 2023 under Sections 406, 420, 409, 465, 467, 471, read with Section 34 of IPC.
3
Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024
4. Heard Sri V.Chandrasen Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and Sri E.Uma Maheshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de-facto complainant was well aware about induction of Mr.Swamijee Kakarla (A1) as Additional Director. After appointing Mr.Swamijee Kakarla as Additional Director, the Accused No.2 and the de-facto complainant had promoted Mr.Swamijee Kakarla as CEO in their sister concern company i.e. M/s.Oorwin INC & Oorwin Labs India Private Limited and the same was recorded in the minutes of meeting dated 04.01.2023. The accused No.2 was 50% shareholder of Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited and the de-facto complainant was 50% shareholder of the said company. Since the date of inception of Mr.Swamijee Kakarla (A1) into the company, no new projects were taken up, there were no new clients. No bank authorization was given to Mr.Swamijee Kakarla nor any salary was paid to him during his tenure. He was only inducted for the purpose of taking his service for the upbringing of the company. The accused No.2 and the son of de-facto complainant were friends. They started the company and expanded their business. They also started another company at USA by name Oorwin Labs INC., wherein Mr.Swamijee Kakarla (A1) rendered his services as Chief Operational Officer. Duly recognizing his services, he was also appointed as Additional Director in Maxoind Tech 4 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 Solutions Private Limited and was also promoted as CEO of M/s.Oorwin Labs INC.
5.1. He further submitted that as the de-facto complainant was trying to interfere with the day to day affairs of the company i.e. Maxotech Solutions, LLC situated at USA, A2 along with A1 approached the District Court, Texas in Cause No.342-348785-23, where under the District Court had granted temporary restraint orders against the de-facto complainant. After obtaining temporary restraint orders dated 14.12.2023, the de-facto complainant lodged the present complaint.
5.2. He further submitted that the wife of the de-facto complainant also filed a complaint in FIR No.979 of 2023 dated 08.12.2023 on the file of PS Raidurgam against A1 to A5 registered for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 468, 471, read with Section 120-B of IPC. The above case registered against the petitioners was absolutely false and fictitious. The Company never made such huge profits as alleged by the de-facto complainant. The petitioner - A2 was a physically handicapped person, he could not walk. The petitioners 3 and 5 were employees of the company. They were not responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The allegations in the complaint would not attract any of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409 and 471, read with Section 34 5 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 of IPC. There were no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and prayed to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited was incorporated in India in 2017 as an offshore Service Provider to Maxotech Solutions, LLC, USA. Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited was having its office at Plot No.35, Road No.70, Nandagiri Hills. The accused No.2 appointed A3 to A5 as HR Manager, In-charge of Operations and Finance Consultant respectively. While the de-facto complainant was in USA, the accused No.2 sent an e-mail to the owner of the building where one of the offices of the company was situated stating that they were shifting the offices of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions and M/s.Oorwin Lab India, as the existing offices were not sufficient to accommodate all the staff and shifted them to the house of A2 at a remote place in East-Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh State.
6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further contended that the accused No.2 had brought into existence a forged board resolution of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited. There were only two directors on the board of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited consisting of A2 and the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant was not in India on 08.12.2022, wherein the alleged board resolution was passed by the Company. 6
Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 There was neither agenda nor any notice calling for any board meeting. As such, the appointment of accused No.1 by A2 alone was not valid. A1 and A2 along with A3 to A5 established another company by name M/s.Signitives IT Solutions Private Limited in Hyderabad and M/s.Signitives Technologies, LLC, USA in the year 2022 with A1 and A2 as its directors with a business model similar to M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited while still being associated with the de-facto complainant's company. A3 being an employee of the de-facto complainant's company addressed letters to various clients of their US company M/s.Maxotech Solutions, LLC and moved them to M/s.Signitives Technologies, LLC and diverted the business of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited to their own company owned by A1 and A2. A3 further misrepresented to the clients in the e-mail that M/s.Signitive Technologies, LLC was a sister company of M/s.Maxotech Solutions, LLC and to cover his tracks advised M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC clients not to tag any Maxotech Solutions LLC e-mails. A3 further raised invoices in the name of M/s.Signitives LLC for the work done by Maxotech Solutions and thus fraudulently diverted the revenue of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited to M/s.Signtives Technologies, LLC which was the company incorporated by A1 and A2 to perpetrate the fraud. A3 and A4 deleted their work e-mails so that the e-mails with the clients were not accessible and caused disappearance of evidence. A5 with a fraudulent intention knowing fully well that the documents were forged 7 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 wrongly uploaded the documents to ROC and facilitated in fraudulent induction of accused No.1 as Additional Director. All the accused had committed cheating, criminal breach of trust by an agent and forgery of valuable security with a common intention to cause unlawful gain to them and to cause unlawful loss to the de-facto complainant's company to a tune of Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores). A2 as the Director of the company would fall under the category of an agent of a company for the purpose of Section 409 of IPC. A1, A3 to A5 committed breach of trust in pursuance of common intention with along with A1, as such, liable for the offence under Section 409 of IPC. The Board Resolution which was a forged document resulted in creating a statutory right portraying A1 as Additional Director resulting in fraudulently getting into the board and acquiring legal right to manage the Company. The forged Board Resolution answers the definition of valuable security under Section 30 of IPC. Forgery of a valuable security in pursuance of common intention for the purpose of cheating M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited would constitute an offence under Section 467 read with Section 34 of IPC against A1 to A5. All the accused had committed the criminal acts with a common intention. Hence, each accused was liable for the acts in the same manner as if it were done by him alone in accordance with Section 34 of IPC. The investigation was at an incipient stage and crucial evidence had to be collected which was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused for which custodial 8 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 interrogation of all the accused was necessary to retrieve the mails which led to transfer of clients from the company of the de-facto complainant to the company set up by the accused. The entire investigation would be jeopardized if the accused were granted anticipatory bail. The invoices raised by A3 and A4 had to be traced to know the extent of damage. As the evidence was available with the accused, there was scope of tampering with the evidence until the police seize the laptops and other documents which were necessary to file the charge-sheet and prayed to dismiss the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the petitioners A2, A3 and A5.
7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
8. This Court on 29.01.2024 gave an interim direction to the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioners A2, A3 and A5 and directed the accused to appear before the Investigating Officer on every even dates until 12.02.2024 for assisting in investigation, which was extended from to time.
9. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 was that accused No.2 was not even appearing before the Investigating Officer as directed by this Court, as such, he was not entitled for anticipatory bail on this count also.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner / A2 submitted that in the month of October, 2023, A2 had underwent major surgeries viz. 9
Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 Hip Dysplasia, Hip Periacetabular Ostemotomy (PAO) in Amara Hospital, Tirupathi. The doctors advised the petitioner - A2 to take complete bed rest for a period of six months. The petitioner - A2 was not in a position to walk and sit for a long time. He was under medication. On 27.12.2023, the Police Officials took the petitioner - A2 to PS EOW, Team - VIII, CCS, Hyderabad for investigation in Crime No.356 of 2023 and made him to sit in the Police Station the entire day without any effective investigation leading to multiple complications to his health conditions. The petitioner - A2 again underwent treatment to heal from the said strain and complications. He was ready to appear virtually and provide all the requisite evidences and documents and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roshni Biswas v. Union of India 1, Jerambhai Vanmalibhai Patel and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2 of Delhi High Court and in Sartaj Ali v. CBI 3 of Delhi High Court and in CBI ACB Kolkata v. Firhad Hakim and Others 4 of Kolkata High Court on the aspect that investigation can be conducted through virtual mode.
11. Perused the record.
12. The allegations in the FIR would disclose that the petitioner - A2 along with the other accused persons A1 and A3 to A5 created forged minutes of 1 2020 SCC Online SC 881 2 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.829 of 2020 vide order dated 20.05.2020 3 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1184 of 2020 vide order dated 05.08.2020 4 Writ Petition No.10504 of 2021 vide order dated 28.05.2021 10 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 Board of Directors Meeting on 08.12.2022 to bring on to the Board, accused No.1 Mr.Swamijee Kakarla. In fact no board meeting could be conducted in the absence of de-facto complainant, as there were only two Directors on the Board. It was further alleged that the petitioner - A2 along with the co-accused A1 had diverted clients to his own company by name M/s.Signitives Technologies, LLC and business of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited to his own Company i.e. M/s.Signitives Group promoted by the petitioner - A2 and A1 and under the directions of the petitioner - A2, A3 had addressed e-mails to the clients of the de-facto complainant's Company that M/s.Signitive was a sister concern of the Company and that their account was being moved to M/s.Signitives. It was also alleged that he requested the clients to stop copying all Maxo e-mails to ensure that their fraud was not detected and diverted the revenue of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited to the company floated by A1 and A2, in criminal breach of trust being the Director of the company (agent) and converted the property of the de-facto complainant's company for their own use by diverting the same to their own company. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petitioner and the other co-accused not only addressed e-mails to the de-facto company's clients for diverting the revenue but also deleted the said e-mails to prevent detection of fraud which came to light through the clients of the de-facto complainant company and the same would be within the exclusive knowledge 11 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 of the accused and without retrieving the same, it could not even be estimated the extent of diversion of funds and custodial interrogation was necessary for proper investigation of the case, it is considered not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein.
13. The compliance report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police also would disclose that the petitioner - A2 had appeared before the Investigating Officer only twice on 09.02.2024 and on 12.02.2024, though he was directed to appear on all the even dates since 29.01.2024.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner
- A2 had come unannounced to meet his son on 23.12.2023 at 08:00 AM by driving a car himself with the stated objective of seeking pardon for his wrong doings, but, when the de-facto complainant called his lawyer, the latter informed the petitioner-A2 that he could not approach the de-facto complainant or his son while the investigation was in progress, left the place. He further stated that the petitioner-A2 was moving with crutches without any assistance, and was trying to meet the witnesses during the pendency of the investigation but reporting his inability to appear before the Investigating Officer, only to stop the progress of investigation.
15. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner - A2 was travelling all over the city and even outside 12 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 the city, visiting various parts of the State by driving the car himself, and that he along with the co-accused had even organized and attended a press conference on 16.12.2023, which would show that the petitioner - A2 was violating the conditions of this Court and was not co-operating with the investigation, it is considered that he is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
16. As the petitioner - A3 being an employee of the de-facto complainant's company was alleged to have addressed letters to various clients of M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC and moved them to M/s.Signitive Technologies LLC and diverted the business of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited to the Company owned by A1 and A2 and misrepresented in the said e-mails that M/s.Signitive Technologies LLC was a sister company of M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC and advised the clients of M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC not to tag the e-mails and as it was further alleged that he raised invoices in the name of M/s.Signitives LLC for the work done by M/s.Maxotech Solutions LLC and fraudulently diverted the revenue of M/s.Maxoind Tech Solutions Private Limited to M/s.Signitive Technologies LLC and the said aspects need to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, it is considered not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner - A3.
17. As it was alleged that accused No.5 knowing fully well that the documents were forged had wrongly uploaded to the ROC and facilitated in 13 Dr.GRR, J crlp_682 & 674_2024 fraudulent induction of accused No.1 as Additional Director and the role played by him also needs to be investigated, it is considered not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner - A5.
18. In the result, the petition filed by the petitioner - A2 vide Criminal Petition No.682 of 2024 and the petition filed by the petitioners - A3 and A5 vide Criminal Petition No.674 of 2024 are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these petitions, if any shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 01st March, 2024 Nsk.