Karnataka High Court
Mr. K R G Sharavanan vs State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3822/2020
BETWEEN:
MR. K R G SHARAVANAN
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
SON OF R GURUSWAMY
R/AT NO. 9/4/39B
SRI RAM NAGAR, KOTTAIYUR
KARAIKUDI
TAMIL NADU - 630 106. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISCHAL DEV B R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER
BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 068
REPRESENTED
BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR. M. MURUGAN
PROPORIETOR OF OM SHAKTHI TRADERS
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O MARIYAPPAN
HAVING OFFICE AT 42, P-5
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT
KUDLU MAIN ROAD
2
MADIWALA POST
HARALUKUNTE VILLAGE
BENGALURU - 560 068. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI LOKESH ANJANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
01.03.2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 BEFORE THE
BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION, ELECTRONIC CITY SUB-
DIVISION, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE - A) AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1
2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with
consent of both parties taken up for final disposal.
3. This petition is filed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime
No.49/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and
506 of IPC.
4. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent
No.2 filed the complaint on 01.03.2020 before the police that
this petitioner owes money to the tune of Rs.1,28,50,311/- and
that this petitioner is the Director of two Companies viz.,
M/s.Sree Vishnu Annamlaiyar Paper Mills Ltd., and M/s.Sree
Annamalaiyar Paper Mill Pvt., Ltd., When the amount was
demanded they caused life threat and also changed the
Company name as Sun Phoenix News Print Private Limited.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that National Company Law Tribunal has passed an order
dated 11.10.2009 and brought to notice of this Court, the order
that moratorium is hereby declared prohibiting all the actions
and hence, there cannot be any criminal proceedings against the
petitioner. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the second Company was sold at the
instance of the Canara Bank and sale certificate was issued vide
Annexure-N dated 10.10.2018 and the present complaint is filed
on 01.03.2020. Hence, there cannot be any criminal prosecution
against this petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.2 would submit that in the year 2017 itself the
petitioner admitted the liability to the tune of Rs.1,34,00,000/-
and when the police went to Tamil Nadu in connection with the
investigation of this matter, the petitioner caused life threat.
Learned counsel relied upon the report submitted by the
Investigating Officer.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while
exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the
FIR, the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. On
perusal of the contents of the complaint which is at Annexure-A,
the specific allegation has been made against this petitioner that
he owes money to the tune of Rs.1,28,50,311/- to the
complainant and when the amount was demanded, the petitioner
not only caused life threat but also changed the name of the
Company in order to deceive and with a dishonest intention, the
petitioner has formulated new Company in the name of Sun
Phoenix News Print Private Limited. When there is a specific
allegation in the complaint that with dishonest intention to
defraud the respondent, the Company was formulated and
caused life threat, the Court has to restrain its hands once the
Court finds that FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any
cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the
investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to
unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in
the Cr.P.C. as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others reported in
2018(3) SCC 104.
8. Learned counsel would submit that it is a commercial
transaction and there cannot be any criminal proceedings. No
doubt, the petitioner owes money to the respondent but the
allegation made in the complaint is not only for recovery of
money, but also against the petitioner that he caused life threat
when the demand was made. Apart from that with an intention
to defraud the respondent, he constituted another Company with
the dishonest intention. When such allegations are made, the
petitioner cannot take the shelter by referring the order passed
by the National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench, Chennai
and also the sale made at the instance of the Canara Bank. The
matter has to be investigated and the Court cannot investigate
the matter on its own and probe into collecting of evidence. If it
interferes, it amounts to interfering with the investigation in the
premature stage as held by the Apex Court in its judgment in
the case of HDFC Securities Ltd. and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Another reported in AIR 2017 SC 61.
Hence, I do not find any reasons to quash the FIR registered
against the petitioners.
9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:-
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
In view of rejection of the main petition, I.A., if any does
not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PYR
