Telangana High Court
Vijay Kumar And Another vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.720 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petitions is filedunder Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to quash
the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences, City
Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences
punishable under Sections 448, 451 of the Companies Act (for
short 'the Act') and Sections 464, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 and
his wife incorporated a company namely M/s.Shreemukh
Namitha Homes Private Limited on 19.08.2015 under the Act.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 appointed as directors of the said company
on 03.09.2016 and 27.08.2015, respectively. As per the altered
articles of association of the Company dated 02.11.2021, during
the Annual General Meeting held on 30.11.2021, the said
company proposed resolution for re-appointment of accused
Nos.1 and 2 as directors of the said company. However, accused
Nos.1 and 2 were not re-appointed as directors of the said
SKS,J
company as majority of the shareholders including respondent
No.2 and his wife voted against the resolution. Thereafter, it
came to light that without the knowledge of respondent No.2
and his wife, who are the 75% shareholders of the said
company, accused Nos.1 and 2 illegally appointed Ms.Yerram
Vanitha and Mr.Kaleshwar Vasgi as directors of the said
Company by surreptitiously conducting Extra Ordinary General
Meeting on 01.12.2021 and uploaded the same with forged
documents in Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Hence, a case was
registered in C.C.No.58 of 2022 before the C.C.No.58 of 2022 on
the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-
Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts at
Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Heard Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri S.Ravi, learned
senior counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there
are civil disputes between the parties, for which, several civil
cases are pending before the concerned Civil Court. He further
submitted that though the disputes between the parties are civil
SKS,J
in nature, respondent No.2 filed criminal case only to misuse
the process of law. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the
Criminal Petition by quashing the proceedings against the
petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners
stating that there are grave allegations against the petitioner
which requires trial. Hence, he prayed to the Court to dismiss
the Criminal Petition.
6. In view of the rival submissions made by both the parties,
this Court has perused the material available on record. The
main allegations are that the petitioners made false statements
before the statutory authority including Ministry of Corporate
affairs apart from illegally appointing third parties through
surreptitious board resolutions only to usurp the management
of the said company. Further, due to civil disputes between the
parties, the petitioners filed civil suits O.S.No.55 of 2022 before
the III Junior Civil Judge, Kukatpally; O.S.No.99 of 2022 before
the XV Additional District Judge, Kukatpally and C.P.No. 10 of
2022 before the National Company Law Tribunal. It is evident
that this Court vide orders dated 08.06.2022 in C.R.P.No.1126
SKS,J
of 2022 allowed the revision petition and passed orders in
favour of respondent No.2 by setting aside the interim orders
passed in O.S.No.99 of 2022. It is pertinent to note that to
quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court
has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie
shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
SurendraKori 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."
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
8. In the case on hand, the allegations are that without any
authority the petitioners appointed directors to the said
company and uploaded the same in the Ministry of Corporate
affairs with forged documents. This Court cannot conduct mini
trial while dealing with the petitions filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., as such, the allegations requires trial. In view of the
same and the law laid down by the Apex Court in
SurendraKori (supra), since the offences alleged against the
petitioners are serious in nature, it requires trial in order to
elicit the true facts of the case. Hence, this Court does not find
any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners and the same are liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_____________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 20.06.2024
gms
