M.Satyanarayana Chowdary , ... vs Public Prosecutor, Ravulapalem, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2766 AP

                                 1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI

                                ****

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12835 & 8884 of 2015

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12835 OF 2015

Between:

1. Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu, S/o.Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Maddipoti Sujatha, W/o.Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O., Ravulapalem, East Godavari District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor.

2. Ch.N.V.V.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Subbi Reddy, R/o.CRC Road, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District.

... Respondents

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8884 OF 2015

Between:

1. Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary, S/o.Venkata Rao, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Maddipoti Varalaxmi, W/o.Satyanarayana Chowdary, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O., Ravulapalem, East Godavari District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor.

2. Ch.N.V.V.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Subbi Reddy, R/o.CRC Road, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District.

... Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 03-05-2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J

* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

+ CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12835 & 8884 of 2015

% 03-05-2023

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12835 OF 2015

Between:

1. Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu, S/o.Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Maddipoti Sujatha, W/o.Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O., Ravulapalem, East Godavari District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor.

2. Ch.N.V.V.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Subbi Reddy, R/o.CRC Road, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District. ... Respondents

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8884 OF 2015

Between:

1. Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary, S/o.Venkata Rao, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

2. Maddipoti Varalaxmi, W/o.Satyanarayana Chowdary, R/o.Bommuru Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District.

And

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O., Ravulapalem, East Godavari District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor.

2. Ch.N.V.V.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.Subbi Reddy, R/o.CRC Road, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District.

.... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri N.Aswini Kumar

^ Counsel for Respondents : Asst.Public Prosecutor

- 1st respondent Sri T.V.Jaggireddy

- 2nd respondent < Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

2019 (3) ALT (Cri.) 22 (SC)

AIR 1992 SC 604

(2013) 11 SCC 673

(2015) 8 SCC 293

2021 SCC Online SC 942

2021 SCC Online SC 976

This Court made the following:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12835 & 8884 of 2015

COMMON ORDER:

Criminal Petition No.12835 of 2015 is filed by the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") praying to quash

the proceedings against them in C.C.No.302 of 2015 on the file

of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta,

East Godavari District, for the offences under Sections 406, 409,

417, 420 and 471 read with 34 IPC.

Criminal Petition No.8884 of 2015 is filed by the

Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4, under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C") praying to quash

the proceedings against them in C.C.No.302 of 2015 pending on

the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothapeta, East Godavari District, for the offences under

Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 and 471 read with 34 IPC.

2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of

C.C.No.302 of 2015 and raising common questions of law, they

have been heard together and are being decided by this common

order.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court in

C.C.No.302 of 2015.

4. The marshalling of facts upon perusal of the complaint

and other material available at this stage is that A.1 - Maddipoti

Venkata Satya Ramu and A.2 - Sujatha are husband and wife

respectively. A.3 - Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary and A.4

- Maddipoti Vara Lakshmi are husband and wife respectively

and parents of A.1 and A.1, A.2 and A.4 are the Directors of

Maddipoti Consultants Private Limited. A.1 is also the Director

of PGM Infrastructures Private Limited.

(ii) The complainant, Chinnam Naga Venkata Satyanarayana

Reddy, is the Managing Director of M/s.Soubhagya Projects

Private Limited, which is registered under the Companies Act.

On 31.08.2008, M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited

appointed M/s.JBRK & Co., Limited as Auditors to audit the

accounts of the Company for the financial year 2007-2008. A.1

(ACA Membership No.20765) and one Praveen (ACA Membership

No.204968), who are the Chartered Accountants and the

partners of M/s.JBRK & Co., Limited, attended the audit of the

said Company and subsequently, A.1 took active role in the

financial activities of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited

and gained confidence of the Company. Thus, M/s.Soubhagya

Projects Private Limited issued 1,50,000 equity shares each of

Rs.10/- to A.2, who is the wife of A.1 and 1,39,400 shares to

L.W.5 - Hanumanthavarjula Ratna Prasad. Later, they have

joined as Additional Directors of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private

Limited. Subsequently, they became the Directors of the

Company from 28.08.2011.

(iii) The de facto Complainant and his brother reposed trust

and confidence in A.1 as he happened to be the Auditor and A.1

gained access to various financial transactions of

M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited. Taking advantage of

his position as a Director of the Company, A.1 took over the

steering of the financial matters of M/s.Soubhagya Projects

Private Limited and fraudulently, misrepresented to TATA

Capital Limited, Mumbai as if he is the Managing Director of the

Company and obtained loan and also withdrew the amounts and

diverted them wrongfully to his accounts.

(iv) On 12.11.2011, A.1 with a fraudulent intention to cheat

the Company, approached TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai, for

obtaining term loan of Rs.10.00 crores and put his signature as

Managing Director of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited,

though he was not a Managing Director of M/s.Soubhagya

Projects Private Limited, by showing himself as one of the

guarantors and A.4 as the 2nd guarantor. As per Bylaws of

M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited, at least two Directors

have to sign on any funding documents, but TATA Capital

Limited accepted the representation sent by A.1, processed the

loan formalities by accepting documents submitted by A.1 and

sanctioned the loan of Rs.10.00 crores on 12.01.2012.

(v) A.1 and A.2, who are husband and wife, created a fake

resolution dt.16.01.2012 by using the Company letter head by

forging the signatures of the de facto Complainant and his

brother as if A.1 was authorized to operate the bank account in

Axis Bank, T.Nagar, Rajahmundry. On 20.01.2012 A.1 gave

requisition to TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai, as if he is an

authorized signatory and Managing Director of M/s.Soubhagya

Projects Private Limited for remitting the term loan of Rs.5.00

crores in the Axis Bank Current Account No.107010200010487

belongs to M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited. On the same

day, the said amount was remitted by TATA Capital Limited,

Mumbai. On 21.01.2012, A.1 diverted an amount of Rs.2.00

crores to the Axis Bank account No.107010200007887 of

Maddipoti Consultants Private Limited, which belongs to A.1 and

A.3 and Rs.3.00 crores into the Axis Bank account

No.515010200000912 of PGM Infrastructure Limited, which

belongs to A.1. The bank officials believed the fake/forged

resolution submitted by A.1 as genuine.

(vi) Similarly, on 04.02.2012 A.1 gave a requisition to TATA

Capital Limited, Mumbai, with fake Company seal as if he is an

authorized signatory of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited

and obtained remaining term loan amount of Rs.5.00 crores

from TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai, through Axis Bank Current

Account No.107010200010487 of the Company. On the same

day, A.1 diverted Rs.3.00 crores into another Axis Bank Account

No.10701030000343 of Maddipoti Consultants Private Limited

belongs to A.1 and A.3 and Rs.2.00 crores into the Axis Bank

Account No.515010200000912 of PGM Infrastructure Limited

belongs to A.1 by using the cheques. A.1, thus, diverted the

amount of Rs.10.00 crores which belongs to M/s.Soubhagya

Projects Private Limited, to his firms. It is a clear violation and

breach of trust. A.2 to A.4 acted in connivance with A.1. After

coming to know the fraudulent transactions and

misappropriation of funds, L.W.1 - Chinnam Naga Venu

Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, gave a report to the Police on

05.01.2013 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.3

of 2013 of Ravulapalem Police Station, against A.1 to A.4 for the

offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 and 471 read with

34 IPC.

(vii) The crime was investigated and eventually having found

prima facie evidence against A.1 to A.4, during investigation, the

Investigating Officer obtained the signatures of L.W.1 - Chinnam

Naga Venu Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and L.W.2 - Chinnam

Chandra Reddy in the presence of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kothapeta and sent them to the Hand Writing Expert,

FSL, Hyderabad, to compare with the signatures on the Board

Resolution dated 16.01.2012 passed by M/s.Soubhagya Projects

Private Limited as if A.1 was authorized to operate the account

of the Company. Hand Writing Expert issued opinion dated

24.10.2014 that the signatures of L.W.1 - Chinnam Naga Venu

Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy and L.W.2 - Chinnam Chandra

Reddy were compared with the questioned signatures and

opined that the signatures are different between questioned and

standard signatures.

(viii) Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Investigating Officer had filed charge sheet in the

trial Court, against A.1 to A.4. The said case is now pending

before the Trial Court in C.C.No.302 of 2015.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the criminal

petitions submitted that the entire dispute is revolving civil in

nature and criminal case ought not have been filed and also the

learned Magistrate ought not have taken cognizance against the

accused Nos.1 to 4 as the matter is purely civil in nature. It is

further submitted that the complainant has to approach the

concerned Tribunal, which is an appropriate forum and as none

of the ingredients of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet

are attracted, the criminal proceedings initiated against the

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 are liable to be quashed. He

would submit that there is no prima facie case made out so as to

conduct the investigation and not proved upon the collection of

evidence by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have not committed the alleged

offences. He would further submit that a proper evolution of the

material on record would disclose that the complaint is frivolous.

Further, he would submit that the dispute is certainly of a civil

nature and the ingredients of the offences that are alleged

against Accused Nos.1 to 4 are not made out the criminal

proceedings against them and initiation of criminal proceedings

would be an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, he would

pray to quash the charge sheet against the petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 to 4.

6. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that

the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have conspired with each

other in order to commit the offences of cheating, forgery for the

purpose of cheating and using a forged document as genuine.

Therefore, the Investigating Officer examined the appropriate

witnesses and sent the Board Resolution dated 16.01.2012 to

the hand writing expert. The signatures of L.Ws.1 and 2 were

compared with the questioned signatures and opined that

signatures are different between questioned and standard. He

would further submit that the criminal proceedings initiated

against the accused are as per law and therefore, there is no

abuse of process of the Court. He would further submit that

having granted stay by this Court, the accused tried to take a

chance for discharging them in C.C.No.302 of 2015 and filed

Crl.M.P.No.4065 of 2015, and the same was dismissed by the

trial Court 30.04.2019, and the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

have not challenged the order of the learned Magistrate and the

same has become final. Therefore, the petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 to 4 having committed the offences and having involved in

a financial scam, by forging the resolution dated 16.01.2012,

cannot claim to quash the present criminal proceedings. He

further submitted that, during investigation, found that there is

prima facie case proved upon collection of evidences and came to

the conclusion that the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have

committed the alleged offences. Therefore, the Investigating

Officer laid charge sheet, which itself fortifies the gravity that the

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the alleged

offences and therefore, this Court does not have power to decide

the disputed facts involved in the case as it is the complete

domain of the trial Court. Therefore, he would pray for

dismissal of both the criminal petitions.

7. In a decision reported in Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu &

Another Vs. State of A.P., & Another1, it is held as follows:

13. The inherent jurisdiction, though wide and expansive, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself, that is, to make orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

14. ...................

15. In exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Court to act as if it were a trial Court. The Court is only to be prima facie satisfied about existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the

2019 (3) ALT (Cri.) 22 (SC)

accused. For that limited purpose, the Court can evaluate materials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.

8. In a decision reported in State of Haryana & Others Vs.

Ch.Bhajanlal and Others2 the Hon'ble Apex Court considered in

detail the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to

quash the criminal proceedings/FIR. The Hon'ble Apex Court

summarized the legal position by laying down the following

guidelines to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of their

inherent powers to quash the criminal complaint.

(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;

(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;

(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;

(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;

(7) AIR 1992 SC 604

(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;

(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;

(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

9. In view of the above said authoritative principles of law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, coming to the case on

hand, as discussed supra, there are several factual aspects,

which are to be decided during the trial by the trial Court. On

perusal of the charge sheet, it prima facie discloses the offences

alleged against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in both the

criminal petitions. The correctness or otherwise of the said

allegations has to be decided only during trial. At the initial

stage of issuance of process, it is not open to Courts to stifle

proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made

on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints could not be

quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein

appear to be of civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence

alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the

charge sheet, the criminal proceedings shall not be interdicted.

10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 to 4 relied on the judgments in Paramjeet Batra Vs.

State of Uttarakhand3, Vesa Holdings Private Limited Vs.

State of Kerala4, Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P &

Others5 and Mitesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka

& Others6, having regard to the facts of the case and evidence

on record of the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that

the said judgments are not helpful to the case of the

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4. A given set of facts may make

out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a

civil remedy may be available to the complainant that itself

cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding.

11. In the present case of nature, the petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 and 2 forged the signatures of the de facto complainant

and his brother, created fake resolution dt.16.01.2012 by using

the Company Letter Heads, as if Accused No.1 was authorized to

operate the bank account of the Company in Axis Bank and with

a fraudulent intention approached TATA Capital

(2013) 11 SCC 673

(2015) 8 SCC 293

2021 SCC Online SC 942

2021 SCC Online SC 976

Limited, Mumbai, A.1 put his signatures as the Managing

Director of the Company for remitting the term loan of Rs.5.00

crores in the Axis Bank Current Account No.107010200010487

belongs to the Company and on the same day i.e., on

20.01.2012 the said amount was remitted by TATA Capital

Limited. On 21.01.2012 A.1 diverted an amount of Rs.2.00

crores to the Axis Bank account No.107010200007887 of

Maddipoti Consultants Private Limited, which belongs to A.1 and

A.3 and A.1 diverted Rs.3.00 crores into another Axis Bank

account No.10701030000912 of PGM Infrastructures Limited

belongs to A.1 and A.3 and similarly on 04.02.2012 A.1 gave a

requisition to TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai, with fake

Company seal as if he is an authorized signatory of

M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited and obtained remaining

term loan amount of Rs.5.00 crores from TATA Capital Limited,

Mumbai through Axis Bank Current Account

No.107010200010487 of the Company. On the same day, A.1

diverted Rs.3.00 crores into another Axis Bank Account

No.10701030000343 of Maddipoti Consultants Private Limited

belongs to A.1 and A.3 and Rs.2.00 crores into the Axis Bank

Account No.515010200000912 of PGM Infrastructure Limited

belongs to A.1 by using the cheques. A.1, thus, diverted the

amount of Rs.10.00 crores which belongs to M/s.Soubhagya

Projects Private Limited, to his firms referred to above.

12. The alleged fake resolution, dated 16.01.2012, was

forwarded to the FSL with the signatures of de facto complainant

and his brother for comparison with the questioned signatures

and the Hand Writing Expert opined that there is a difference in

the questioned and the standard signatures and issued opinion

dt.24.10.2014. Therefore, the signatures on the alleged fake

resolution are not that of the de facto complainant and his

brother, which were forged, as per the scientific evidence.

13. The said allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet

and the evidence collected, disclose the commission of offence by

the accused, hence, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed

at this stage and this Court satisfied that the accused knowing

fully well that the resolution dated 16.01.2012 is fabricated by

them and presented on behalf of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private

Limited before TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai, withdrew the

amount of Rs.10.00 crores, remitted to their personal accounts

as stated above and the accused have not only cheated

M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited, but also cheated TATA

Capital Limited, Mumbai with a deceptive intention and at the

inception created forged and fabricated document shown as

genuine.

14. In a decision reported in Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar

Vs. State of Maharashtra and others7, Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India, held as follows:

"5. Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere.

9. ....................., we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."

15. In the light of the above decision, considering the filing of

charge sheet itself prima facie fortifies the fact that the

allegations made in the charge sheet that all the

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the above criminal petitions

2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 211 (SC)

have conspired to each other and committed the alleged

offences. Therefore, in this regard, even though it is contended

by the learned counsel for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

that the entire case is civil in nature, at the same time, there are

allegations made out as alleged offences of forgery, fabrication of

documents, cheating and using a forged document as genuine.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an abuse of process of

the Court so as to quash the proceedings initiated against the

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4.

16. In the present case, the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4

tried to get over from the criminal proceedings and during

pendency of the stay granted by this Court, filed an application

in Crl.M.P.No.4065 of 2015 in C.C.302 of 2015 before the trial

Court to discharge them from the alleged offences in the said

criminal case. The learned Magistrate discussed at length and

dismissed the petition opining that the petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 to 4 have failed to prove the plea taken by them and they

cannot be discharged at this stage. The petitioners/Accused

Nos.1 to 4 have not carried out the matter to the Appellate

Court. Therefore, it prima facie shows that the element of

criminal acts were done in the present case and further after

investigation, the investigating officer had filed charge sheet,

which fortifies the facts that the acts which are criminal in

nature were done, which is liable to be decided during the full-

fledged trial in criminal proceedings. Therefore, the correctness

and otherwise of the said allegations have to be decided only

during full-fledged trial, but not at this stage. The criminal

complaint prima facie makes the allegations of criminal liability

and furthermore, in the present case, the said fact is fortified by

filing of charge sheet by the investigating officer and in such an

event, criminal complaints cannot be quashed. Even though the

disputes are found to be civil in nature as alleged, where the

allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents are involved,

using forged document as genuine i.e., Board Resolution dated

16.01.2012 and diverting funds of Rs.10.00 crores to the firms

of A.1 to A.4 as stated above, initiation of criminal proceedings

cannot be quashed.

17. Upon considering the entire materials and for the reasons

above stated and after following the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal's case (supra)¸ this Court is

of the opinion that none of the principles are suited to this case

for quashing. Hence, with the above, this Court has come to a

conclusion that the allegations made in the charge sheet in

C.C.No.302 of 2015, are sufficient enough for the trial to be

taken up and thereby, the criminal proceedings are not

advisable to be quashed. Therefore, this Court does not find any

abuse of process of the Court in initiating criminal proceedings

against the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in the above criminal

petitions.

18. Therefore, the Criminal Petition No.12835 of 2015 filed by

petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2 and Criminal Petition No.8884

of 2015 filed by petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4 arising out of

C.C.No.302 of 2015, are liable to be dismissed.

19. Resultantly, Criminal Petition Nos.12835 of 2015 and

8884 of 2015 arising out of C.C.No.302 of 2015, lack merit and

stand dismissed.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, pending if any,

shall stand disposed of.

JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 03.05.2023 DNS Mjl/*

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12835 & 8884 of 2015

03.05.2023 DNS

Mjl/*