Telangana High Court
L.Dhanujaya Reddy vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp ... on 25 September, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12516 OF 2016
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/A3 to quash
the proceedings in C.C.No.1 of 2016 on the file of XVI Metropolitan
Magistrate, Kukatpally, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.
2. The 2nd respondent/complainant lodged a complaint stating
that A1, A2 are husband and wife, A2 is the sister of the
complainant. The complainant and his brother Raghuram Reddy
floated a company for manufacturing bulk drugs. The share capital
of the brothers in the company was in the ratio of 50:50. The
company was acquired in an auction conducted by the State Bank
of India and entire amount was paid. Thereafter, partnership firm
was formed in the year 2000 with the complainant, his brother, A2,
mother and another as partners. A1 was unemployed though he
was Ph.D in Organic Chemistry. The complainant offered him to
join as partner and accordingly partnership was reconstituted by
retiring his mother and A1 joined in the place of complainant's
mother.
3. In the company, which was purchased in auction,
complainant and his brother inducted the 1st petitioner/A1 as
additional Director in the company from 02.09.2011. Thereafter,
commercial activity started. A1 ceased to be a Director in the
company from 29.09.2012. On the said date in the Annual General
Meeting, the complainant and his brother did not reappoint his
brother-in-law 1st petitioner/A1 as Director in the company. It was
informed to ROC that A1 ceased to be a Director and Form-32 was
uploaded on 25.11.2012. Other relevant documents, such as
annual returns etc., were also uploaded. However, it is alleged that
A1 and A2 colluded with this petitioner-A3, who is Company
Secretary and obtained documents of the complainant and his
brother with his ID proof, address proof, pan card and also other
documents. This petitioner allegedly manipulated and forged
signatures of defacto complainant on various board resolutions,
minutes of meeting of Board of Directors etc., and managed to get
DSC(digital signature certificate) in the name of the defacto
complainant through A4. It is alleged that A4 colluded and assisted
A1 and A2 in obtaining DSC from the Company TCS-CA in a
fraudulent manner.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner who is a Company Secretary has nothing
to do with the alleged fabrication. Whatever the documents that are
brought to his notice would be uploaded as required with
ROC(Registrar of Companies). It is part of his duty. He cannot be
mulcted with criminal liability while performing his duty as a
Company Secretary. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v
K.Narayana Rao 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
quashed the proceedings against an Advocate who had given
opinion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless it is shown
that the as a professional providing his services was complicit and
played an active role in defrauding the Bank, criminal proceedings
cannot be permitted against the said professional/Advocate. A4
who provided the DSC was removed from the array of accused in
the supplementary charge sheet. When A4 was not complicit, the
question of this petitioner being tried on the very same allegations
as against A4, cannot be continued.
5. Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of
Investigation 2, HDFC Securities Limited and others v. State of
(2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 512
(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 609)
Maharashtra and another 3 and Canara Bank v. P.Selathal and
others 4.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the employee of the petitioner had
given statement before the learned Magistrate that this petitioner
was complicit of fabricating the documents in the office. Further,
the petitioner had uploaded fabricated documents with the ROC.
7. The employee of the petitioner namely Naresh Kumar has
stated as follows in his 164 CRPC statement before Magistrate:
"I am resident of Uppuguda and I am private employee.
I am working as system operator, in LD Reddy and Company
situated at Lakdikapool. On 5th March, 2013, one Kasthuri Reddy, who
is the Managing Director of Dhana Laboratories and one Ramadevi
Madam, who is the wife of Kasthuri Reddy came to our Office and
talked to our Sir by name L.Dhananjaya Reddy, who is the Company
Secreetary, called me inside the cabin, where talks were going on and
stated that they want Digital signature of N.Rajarami Reddy, who is
the relative of Kasthuri Reddy and Kasthuri Reddy have given some
proofs like PAN card and Voter ID of Rajarami Reddy and the Kasthuri
Reddy Sir has stated that to insert the Company Mail-ID
sridhinada_labs@G-mail in the application form DSC (digital signature
certificate) and filling the form get the authorization form, after filing the
digital signature. As all the mails were filled in the Sir's Mail ID, as
such Sir stated to give my Mail ID, as such I have given my Mail ID as
[email protected] and I have given the mail-ID of Company,
as such password to the Company and the Sir Kasthuri Reddy has
taken the password, and opened the same and informed me the same
and I have download the digital signature. We also make ready the
forms like form-32, (appointment of additional Director) and Form-
2(allotment of shares) and all the forms were checked by Dhanunjaya
Reddy.
Kasthuri Reddy have given one paper, in which N.Rajarami
Reddy signature was there and he has pasted his signatures and
given me and I converted the same to PDF and attached the same to
(2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 640
(2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 143
the forms 32 and 2 and when Dhanunjaya Reddy checked all the
forms and given permission to file with ROC (Registrar of Companies).
The contents of the above statement is read over to the witness
and be admitted to be true and signed on the statement. While
recording the statement nobody was present, except the witness, typist
and myself."
8. The said statement clearly reflects that this petitioner along
with A1 and A2 had fabricated some documents. In view of the said
statement of the employee of this petitioner, the proceedings cannot
be quashed against the petitioner. However the statement is
subject to cross-examination and proof during trial. At the stage of
quash proceedings, prima facie evidence is sufficient to decline the
prayer for quashment.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 25.09.2023
kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12516 OF 2016
Dt. 25.09.2023
kvs
