Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Sidhartha Kothari vs State Of Odisha .... Opp. Party on 20 July, 2023

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    ABLAPL No.6442 of 2023

                  Sidhartha Kothari                    ....         Petitioner
                                           Mr. Bijaya Kumar Ragada, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                  State of Odisha                      ....           Opp. Party
                                                            Mr. D. Biswal, ASC

                                       Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate
                                                            For the Informant



                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH


                                             ORDER

Order No. 20.07.2023

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Informant and the State.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail U/s. 438 of Cr.P.C. in apprehension of arrest for his alleged involvement in the offences under Sections 420/406/409/467/471/120-B of IPC in connection with Jonk PS Case No.49 of 2022 corresponding to CT Case No.143 of 2022 pending in the court of learned SDJM, Nuapada.

3. It is alleged that on 01.10.2002, one Manju Surana filed one 1CC Case No.5 of 2021 before the Court of the learned SDJM, Nuapada and the said complaint petition was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of CrPC for registration and accordingly the same // 2 // was registered against Jonk PS Case No.49 of 2022. It is further alleged that in the year 2002, when the complainant along with her husband had come to her parents' house in Khariar Road to attend a family function, the accused persons, namely, Suresh Kothari along with his wife Kusum Kothari and Chartered Accountant Shripal Kothari, visited her parents' house at Khariar Road and could convince her and her husband to invest shares in Rajat Buildcon India Pvt. Ltd., Durg, Chhattisgarh. As such, the complainant paid them, a cash of Rs.19,900/- instantly and they purchased shares in the said company being influenced by them. On 10.12.2002, the complainant was allotted another 1990 shares in the said company.

4. On 30.03.2003, the complainant and Kusum Kothari retired from the post of the Directors of the company and the company and at the same time, Suresh Kothari one Prakash Jayaswal of Kalkata were inducted as the Directors of the said company. In the year 2020 Rajat Surana came to know that her mother is the shareholder of the company as per records in ROC, Bilaspur as he downloaded the records from MCA. Later he came to know that her mother is the shareholder of 2000 shares in Rajat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. On 10.10.2007, the annual return of the company prepared by the Chartered Accountant Shripal Kothari revealed that the 200 shares of the complainant has been illegally and fraudulently lessened to 100 shares and the accused persons have swallowed an amount of Rs.1,37,46,803/-. The rest 1000 shares of the complainant continued in her name till 2014 as per the Annual Return Report. Further, it was shown that out of the rest 1000 shares, 564 numbers of shares was shown in the name of Suresh Kothari and the rest 436 Page 2 of 4 // 3 // shares were shown in the name of the accused persons namely Suresh Kothari and Shripal Kothari illegally, fraudulently and cheated the complainant for cash worth Rs.2,15,00,000/- .

5. It is submitted by Mr. Ragada, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is no way connected in the business in as much as he has resigned since long from the directorship replacing his father Suresh Kothari. He further submitted that the matter as regards fraud or manipulation has been raised in the matter pending before the NCLAT and the dispute is absolutely in the domain of Civil dispute and no criminal liability can be attributed to the Petitioner.

6. Mr. S.S.Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that the Petitioner has committed a fraud and swindled huge money. He further submitted that the Petitioner along with his wife and his friend the Chattered Accountant conspired and defrauded the informant and duped them. According to Mr. Das the act alleged cannot be said to be a Civil dispute since the fraud has been perpetrated behind the back of the Petitioner by manipulating the documents in the custody of the Petitioner even though he has shown to have resigned since long and is a matter within the ambit criminal offence. He also pointed out that the Petitioner though seemed to have reassigned is absolutely in the helm of affair and is still the custodian of the documents and manipulating the documents suitable to him detrimental to the interest of the informant. It being a criminal act there is nothing to treat it a dispute of civil nature.

// 4 //

7. Perusal of documents as placed from both the parties and the learned Addl. Standing counsel from the State there is material apparently to show that there is interference in the shares allegedly held in favour of the informant. To their utter surprise the shares held by the informant got automatically reduced without their intervention in any manner as held in their name. The figure shown in the record as held originally by the informant got reduced and held in the name of the father of the Petitioner are matters of probe and can't simply be ignored giving it a colour of Civil dispute. Admittedly, the part of dispute shown pending before NCLAT has to be adjudicated by the said authority but the manipulations in share by crediting in favour of another reducing it from one of the share holder without his intervention in any manner certainly give rise to a criminality.

8. The submission of Mr. Ragada that the Petitioner is no way connected to the dispute would definitely be taken care of in course of investigation but apparently his resignation from the directorship so also his wife and induction of his father without inkling to other share holders apparently need a custodial interrogation. With the above discussions while this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner it is directed that if in the opinion of the investigating agency the Petitioner co cooperates in all respect and it does not require a custodial interrogation it may proceed so at its discretion. The ABLAPL is disposed of accordingly.

Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN (Chittaranjan Dash) Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Judge AKPradhan Date: 22-Jul-2023 17:16:29 Page 4 of 4