K.Vishwanatha Gupta 3 Others vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3827 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3827 Tel
Judgement Date : 22 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

K.Vishwanatha Gupta 3 Others vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp ... on 22 July, 2022

Bench: A.Santhosh Reddy

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                CRL.P.NO.15608 OF 2013
ORDER:

This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to

quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A-3, A-4, A-6 and

A-7 in C.C.No.988 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Shadnagar.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. None represented

the second respondent. Perused the material on record.

3. The prosecution case in brief, is that second respondent

herein filed a complaint alleging that A-2 to A-6 are the

Directors of M/s.Vini Metaspin Steels Limited (M/s.Swetha

Alloys Limited) established at Nandigaon Village, Kothur Mandal

of Mahaboobnagar District and incorporated with the Registrar

of Companies, A.P., Hyderabad and with active collusion with

A-1 established the said company. The accused-Directors have

issued company's prospectus on 11.10.1995 to 16.10.1995 and

went to the Public Issue by inviting the public investments in

the shape of shares and collected huge amounts to a tune of

Rs.4,03,61,000/- by inducing them with their assurances and

promises. But none of the promises or assurances has been

fulfilled by the accused and misappropriated the collected

amounts from the investors, caused huge loss and damage to

the innocent investors and closed the company. On the said

allegations, a case was registered in crime No.76 of 2005 of

Shadnagar Police Station, investigated into and filed charge

sheet by the police.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

allegations against the petitioners prima facie, do not satisfy any

of the alleged offences. The prosecution has not placed any

material evidence about the role played by the petitioners in the

Company and their involvement in the day to day affairs of the

Company. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against

the petitioners.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the

allegations of the charge-sheet, F.I.R/complaint and the

statements of the witnesses, prima facie, satisfy the requirement

of framing charges and proceed against the petitioners and

other accused and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. A perusal of the allegations of the charge-sheet would

reveal that the A-1 to A-7 as Chairman, Managing Director,

Executive Director and Directors established M/s.Vini Metaspin

Steels Limited (M/s.Swetha Alloys Limited) at Nandigaon

Village, Kothur Mandal of Mahabubnagar District and

incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, A.P., Hyderabad.

They have conspired and with preconceived design to gain

wrongfully in connivance with A-8 to A-10 to cheat the investors

have issued company's prospectus on 11.10.1995 to 16.10.1995

and went to the public issue by inviting the public investments

and collected the public funds by inducing and making false

promises to a tune of Rs.4,03,61,000/- in the name of company

and they failed to fulfill the promises and assurances

misappropriated all the amounts collected from the investors

and caused huge loss and damage to the innocent investors.by

false promises to a tune of Rs.4,03,61,000/- in the name of

Company and misappropriated all the collected money and

thereby, the petitioners/A-3, A-4, A-6 and A-7 and other

accused are individually responsible for committing the offences

and charged for the offences under Section 120-B, 409, 420 IPC

along with other accused. The charge sheet further reveals that

the Investigating Officer examined about (23) witnesses

excluding eight official witnesses to establish the alleged

offences against the petitioners and other accused.

7. In State of Haryana v.Bhajan Lal1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:-

"In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(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 FIR 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 uncontraverted 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.

1 1992 supp(1) SCC 335

(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 proceedings 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."

8. Keeping in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, coming to the instant

case, the allegations of the charge-sheet and other statements of

the witnesses and entire material on record would prima facie

make out the ingredients of the alleged offences. As held by the

Apex Court, when the allegations in the F.I.R. or the charge

sheet disclose the commission of cognizable offence and

prima facie necessary ingredients of the alleged offences are

made out, it is not appropriate to invoke the powers under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. and when there is no abuse of process of

Court, it would be appropriate to permit the trial Court to

proceed with the trial by framing the necessary charges. There