Telangana High Court

L.Bharath Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 8 April, 2024

          HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
          CRIMINAL PETITION No.10384 OF 2023


ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by petitioners who are

accused No.1 and 2 praying the Court to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.2818 of 2020 arising out of FIR bearing

No.457 of 2018 on the file of V Additional Metropolitan

Magistrate Cum I Additional Junior civil Judge, Medchal-

Malkajgiri.

2. As per the averments the petitioner No.1 along with the

defacto complainant have incorporated a company in the name

and style of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures in January, 2013 and the

company is manufacturing plastic items and containers which

is set up in a 7000 sq. ft. Industrial shed and carries out

business activities in 6 different states i.e. Telangana, Andhra

Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Orissa.

3. Initially the petitioner and defacto complainant along

with his mother and one another have entered into the

partnership agreement in the year 2013, and the petitioner/

accused No.1 is holding a share of 29% and he had invested

SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023

Rs.1,00,00,000/- and also mortgaged two immovable

properties of his parents as collateral security in APSFC to

raise machinery loan for the company and further submitted

that the said partnership deed was duly registered and

subsequently there were two amendments made in the

partnership deeds dated 15.03.2013 and 13.11.2013, wherein

two partners in the partnership deed exited and two new

partners were included in the firm.

4. The petitioner No.1/Accused's sister in law i.e. L.Divya

has joined as one of the partners and holds 21% share in M/s.

Seiko Polyclosures company from 2013 till today, the

petitioner and his sister in law hold 50% share in the company

and are continuing as managing partner and partner

respectively in M/s. Seiko Polyclosures till date and the matter

stood thus to divert the business of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures

fraudulently the defacto complainant and his family members

conspired together and launched a bogus trading company in

the name and style of Vishwin Plastic Traders with

complainant's brother being the proprietor of the said

company.

SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023

5. The affairs of the Vishwin Plastic Traders were being

carried out in the premises of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures but for

namesake they rented a 100 Sq. ft. shutter for official records

where it is impossible to maintain stock of tons of raw material

and stock of millions of worth finished products in a size of a

kiosk. It is further submitted that entire business activities

and transactions of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures are being carried

out in the name of Vishwin Plastic Traders from the premises

M/s.Seiko Polyclosures. But the defacto complainant and his

family members have set up this shell company in order to

cheat this petitioner No.1 and his sister in law and also to grab

their 50% share of profits and submitted that any raw material

purchases, production and finished goods sales that take place

at M/s. Seiko Polyclosures has to be in the knowledge of the

managing partner of M/s. Seiko Polyclosures in order to

release money from the company, the petitioner No.1 being the

managing partner of the company has to sign the current

account cheques without which the banks won't pass the

company cheques and to avoid petitioner no.1's sign on the

cheques, the defacto complainant and the rest of the family

members conspired and launched a shell company for doing

SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023

fraudulent economic transactions so as to evade crores of

rupees of taxes to government and to grab petitioner and his

sister-in-law's 50% share of profits. Though there are no

specific allegations against these petitioners in the complaint

and FIR was registered without any preliminary investigation

and there are no specific events mentioned against A1 to A5 in

the said complaint for the offences punishable under Sections

448, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and no proofs have been placed to

show that the petitioners have threatened or criminally

intimidated the defacto complainant. Therefore, prayed the

Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2818 of 2020.

6. Heard Sri B.Rachana Reddy, learned Senior counsel for

the petitioners and Sri S.Ganesh, Learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Venkateshwar

Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

even though there are no allegations against these petitioners

the police registered a false case. As such, prayed the Court to

quash the criminal petition.

SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

would submit that there are serious allegations against the

accused and as such, it cannot be quashed at this stage and if

there are no allegations, the trial Court will conduct the trial

and truth will come out after the trial only. As such, prayed

the Court to dismiss the petition.

9. It is pertinent to note that the Judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1,

wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

10. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on

record and in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision

(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

SKS, J Crlp.10384 of 2023

cited supra, the charge sheet filed against A1 to A5 stating that

on 13.11.2013 one of the new partner L.Divya, who is sister in

law of A1 was entered into the partnership deed and one of the

partner wanted to exit and amicable settlements arrived before

the elders and the said Bharat Kumar filed a case against the

complainant for which he approached II Additional

Metropolitan Sessions Judge for anticipatory bail, hence

complainant surrendered and released on bail. After releasing