Telangana High Court
Datla Sree Rama Raju vs P. Kumar Srinivas Varma on 2 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6881 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 (A.3) in FIR
No. 579 of 2024 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 420,
509, 354, 506, 120-b, 347, 423, 357 r/w.Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code (for short the 'I.P.C.').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent-
defacto complainant gave a complaint stating that he is the
founder of M/s.Super Surfaces India Pvt. Ltd. ("Company")
which was incorporated on 14.07.2014, involved in the business
of Luxury Texture Paints Supply & Application. The
complainant was introduced to accused Nos.1 and 2 through
accused No.6 for the purpose of investment in the complainant's
company. A.1 has invested an amount of Rs.3 Crores and was
allotted 20% of complainant's company shares. Thereafter, A.1
has further invested an amount of Rs.4 Crores for an additional
25% share in the complainant's company shares. Unknowingly,
the complainant was made to sign a share subscription-cum-
share holders agreement without favourable grounds and
Vishnu Vardhan (A.1) with the help of Datla Rama Raju, Auditor
of the company ensured that certain unilateral rights were
included in his favour. As a result of the said agreement,
Vishnu Vardhan became owner of 45% shares of the company.
Immediately after acquiring 45% equity in the company, A.1
started acting in a very highhanded and erratic manner and
started taking unilateral decisions in diverting the company's
funds and several other actions that were contrary to corporate
governance. On 09.12.2021 the complainant reached out A.1
and Rama Raju, to set up a meeting to discuss and negotiate
their exit from the company in good faith. A.1 then suggested
that all the parties to meet at ITC Kohinoor on 10.12.2021. On
10.12.2021, to discuss and close the issue, the complainant met
A.1 and A.3 to discuss their unlawful and high handed action.
Instead of admitting their wrongful deeds, A.1 and A.3 started
abusing him in filthy language and also threatened him and his
family with dire consequences to immediately transfer his equity
to them and walk out from the company. They further
threatened him not to involve in the affairs of his own company.
A.1 used most abusive and threatening language stating that he
is from Pulivendula faction background and has a gun at his
home and he is not afraid to use it. They also threatened that
the complainant's family consisting of his mother and sister,
would not be spared. Later pending civil proceedings in
C.P.No.64 of 2021 before the National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT), the accused filed a false and baseless complaint with
P.S.Madhapur which was registered as FIR No.105 of 2022 with
all false and concocted allegations of kidnapping, extortion,
criminal breach of trust etc. On 14.03.2022, A.1 and others
have called his family and friends including Ms.Durga Deepthi,
Ms.K.Anuroopa and Ms. Anusha Raj to their office to arrive at a
compromise regarding the dispute between them. Upon their
arrival, their phones were taken away, they were confined to the
office and not allowed to step out. They were in the office from
12.00 p.m to 6.00 a.m., in the morning, against their will and
they were not allowed to leave the office until they agreed to
convince the complainant to settle by transferring his shares
and personal properties for no consideration. They were put
under severe pressure and threat of outraging the modesty,
harassment and abuse, if they do not succumb to their
demands. Left with no other option and to ensure their safety,
agreed to transfer his shares and properties for no monetary
consideration. They also signed the memorandum of
compromise by way of which various assets belonging to him
were transferred to the company for no consideration and was
put under severe coercion and was forced to hand over all his
assets, properties, company shares to Vishnu Vardhan. Due to
the criminal actions of Vishnu Vardhan, Malkireddy
Veerabhadra Reddy, Datla Sri Rama Raju, N.Nani Raju @ Nani,
V. Rama Krishna Raju, P.Ravi Varma, Vinay Rao Voleti and
their associates Shiva Kumar Nunna and Hanumantha Rao,
despite having forcefully and under coercion taken his shares in
the company and properties without any consideration and
made him resign from the company. A.1 and A.3 continued to
harass and threaten the complainant, his family and friends for
additional payment of Rs.2 Crores in cash out of fear and threat
he and his friends borrowed some money from various sources
and put together Rs.1 Crore was paid to Rama Raju with the
sole intention to protect their safety. These are the allegations
leveled against A.1 to A.9 and the petitioner herein is A.3.
3. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri D. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent/defacto complainant and Sri S.Ganesh,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent-
State.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the specific allegation is against A.1. The allegation against the
petitioner is that he in collusion with A.1 has hoodwinked the
complainant in signing a share subscription-cum-share holder
agreement and all the allegations made are only to convert the
civil dispute into a criminal case, only for the purpose of
settlement and compromise. The primary allegation is that
petitioner along with A.1 has hoodwinked the complainant in
signing the share subscription-cum-share holder agreement
with unfavourable terms leading to unilateral rights in favour of
A.1, is totally false. The petitioner is no way related to
solicitation of document nor petitioner had any say in terms of
conditions. The said share subscription-cum-share holder
agreement was signed by A.1, complainant and his wife. But
she is not aggrieved by the said agreement. Though there is a
clause in the Share holder agreement for arbitration, the
petitioner has not proceeded for arbitration. The allegations
leveled against the petitioner is of the year 2021 and no reason
is forthcoming from the complainant as to why he has not
prosecuted the petitioner then and there itself, if he was so
aggrieved.
5. The FIR is registered in violation of the judgment in
Lalitha Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and others 1
as no enquiry was conducted by the police before registering the
FIR. The petitioner herein is in the profession of accountancy
and has no share or personal interest in the affairs or
transactions in the complainant's company. There are no
grounds to proceed with the case. The ingredients for the
offence under Sections 420, 386 and 354 of I.P.C does not
attract to the petitioner when the complainant allegedly
appointed eight new Directors in violation of Share holders
agreement and proposed to conduct board meeting on
23.12.2021 to seek board's approval to remove A.1 as the
Director of company with 45% share holding, A.1 approached
NCLT by filing C.P.No.64 of 2021 and the NCLT by its order
dated 22.12.2021, granted order in favour of A.1 and against
the complainant directing the complainant not to remove A.1
from the Board of Directors and the said order remains
unchallenged by the complainant till today. The issue between
1 (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1
accused and complainant is already pending adjudication before
the competent civil Court in an arm twisting manner and in
order to settle the score with A.1, the present complaint is filed.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, time and
again reiterated that violation of terms and conditions of
contract cannot attract criminal prosecution. In Inder Mohan
Goswami Vs State of Uttaranchal 2, it is observed that the
Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not to be used
as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta
or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused as that of
illegal attempts made in this case. Further, the petitioner
herein is one of the witnesses in the complaint lodged by A.1
against the complainant.
7. The allegation made against the petitioner is only his
presence and there was no property transfer in the name of this
petitioner to constitute the offence under Section 386 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel further contended that as the incident
occurred in the year 2021-22, petitioner is no way concerned
with the same and his alternative prayer is that as the offence
2 (2007) 12 SCC 1
under Section 386 of I.P.C., does not attract to the petitioner, he
prayed the Court to direct the police to issue Section 41-A
Cr.P.C.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant
would submit that petitioner along with others filed
W.P.No.15978 of 2024. It is not a civil dispute, there is severe
threat to the life of family members of the complainant and out
of fear the personal properties of complainant were transferred
in the name of A.1. As such, it requires investigation.
9. On behalf of the State learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
would submit that there are serious allegations against the
petitioner and an amount of Rs.1 Crore was transferred in the
name of petitioner which constitutes an offence under Section
386 of I.P.C. Hence, the petitioner is not even entitled to
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice and prayed the Court to dismiss this
petition.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective
counsel, it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the averments do not constitute offence under Section 386
of I.P.C, against this petitioner, as the properties are transferred
in the name of A.1 and A.2. The petitioner is not a signatory to
the MOU and not a party to the said MOU, whereas the
complainant would submit that writ petition filed by the
petitioner shows that he is filing writ petition on behalf of A.1,
A.2 and other accused and that there is transfer of amount in
the name of petitioner which shows the involvement of
petitioner.
11. As seen from the record, in the complaint it is mentioned
that other accused along with the petitioner harassed and
threatened the complainant, his family and friends for
additional payment of Rs.2 Crores in cash. Out of fear and
threat the complainant and his friends borrowed money from
various sources and paid Rs.1 Crore to Rama Raju who is
representing Mr. Vishnu Vardhan. The statement of Lw.1
shows that when they were called to Anthra Info Solutions
Private Limited, petitioner is also present along with N. Nani
Raju @ Nani, Veerabhadra Reddy, Rama Krishna, Shiva Rama
Krishna and their advocates. Lw.2 also revealed the name of
petitioner in his statement when they threatened the family
members of the complainant.
12. The statement of witnesses shows that this petitioner
along with other accused threatened the complainant, abused
him in filthy language and also threatened to foist prostitution
case against Durga Deepthi, Anuroopa and Anusha. Due to
fear, they signed blank cheque and also on MOU which shows
the prima-facie allegation and involvement of petitioner in the
said transaction. As the matter is still under investigation, the
proceedings against the petitioner in FIR No.579 of 2024 cannot
be quashed at this stage and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date :02.07.2024
Rds
