Karnataka High Court
Dr. V Ramakrishna vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation on 20 February, 2015
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5234/2010
BETWEEN:
Dr.V.Ramakrishna
S/o late Sri.P.Vinayaka Sundaram
Major in age,
Aged about 58 years
Residing at No.434, "Vinayaka",
21st main, 10th cross,
JP Nagar II phase,
Bangalore-560 078. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri.R.Muralidhara, Adv. for Lexicon Advs. )
AND:
1. The Central Bureau of Investigation
ACB, Bangalore.
2. Union Bank of India
J P Nagar Branch,
J P Nagar, Bangalore.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.P.M.Nawaz, Adv. for Sri.C.H.Jadhav, Standing
counsel for R1 )
This Crl.P. is filed u/S.482 of Cr.P.C praying to
quash the charge sheet in RC 10(A)/2005-BLR & all
-2-
further proceedings in C.C.No.34610/06 pending on the
file of XVII ACMM for CBI cases at Bangalore.
This Crl.P. coming on for hearing this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in C.C.No.34610/2006 pending trial for offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 120-B IPC. He has filed this petition to quash the final report.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.
3. The uncontroverted allegations of final report read thus:-
"2. That in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy Shri Dr.V.Ramakrishna (A2) being the active partner of A-1 firm, which had availed credit facilities from Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore, along with the other Partners of the firm. A-2 to A-6 had dishonestly and fraudulently opened a -3- current account No.50 028 with Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore, on 14.01.2000 with the help of the then Branch Manager, Shri K.Ashok Nayak for the purpose of availing the credit facilities sanctioned to M/s.Zen Motors (A-1) by Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore.
3. That in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy, Shri.Dr.V.Ramakrishna (A-2) who was authorized to operate the account of M/s.Zen Motors (A-1) and he along with the other Partners of the firm, A-2 to A-6 had dishonestly and fraudulently suppressed the fact of the premature termination of their dealership agreement with M/s.TVS Suzuki Ltd., which had expired during February 2000, while availing the credit facilities disbursed by UBI, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, during the relevant period.
4. That M/s.Zen Motors (A-1) was categorically directed by M/s.TVS Suzuki Ltd., vide their letter 24.01.2000 instructing A-1 firm not to represent TVS company in -4- any manner to the general public or others to the effect that they were authorized dealers of the Company and despite this communication A-1, in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy had continued to give a false impression of being the authorized dealers of M/s.TVS Suzuki Ltd., to the public and especially to Union Bank of India with a dishonest intention of defrauding the said bank.
5. That in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy, Dr.V.Ramakrishna (A2), Smt.Ambhikeshwari (A3), Shri.P.Praneet (A4), Shri P.Krishnamurthy (A5) and Shri Ramesh(A6), being the Partners of (A-1) firm, had dishonestly and fraudulently entered into an agreement with M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bangalore, for the lease of the property located at No.34, Bangalore Mysore Road, which was already offered as collateral security to Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore, against the credit facilities availed by them.
6. That in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy, Dr.V.Ramakrishna (A2) -5- and the other partners A-2 to A-6 had dishonestly and fraudulently maintained parallel accounts with Canara Bank, Chamrajpet Branch, Bangalore, and with Federal Bank, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, for the purpose of routing their business proceeds through these accounts instead of crediting such payments into the loan account of the firm, at Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore and that an amount of Rs.30.69 lakhs was thus routed through the parallel accounts, in violation of the sanction terms and conditions of the sanction.
7. That in pursuance of the above said conspiracy, after the premature termination of their dealership with M/s.TVS Suzuki Ltd., the accused persons viz.M/s.Zen Motors (A1) represented by A-2 to A-6 had dishonestly and fraudulently allowed their office premises to be used for the sale of TVS vehicles on behalf of the other authorized dealers viz., M/s.Bharat Automobiles, Bangalore, M/s.Bridgestone Agencies, Bangalore, and that even when this practice -6- was being adopted the corresponding sale proceeds were not remitted in the loan account with Union Bank of India.
8. That in pursuance of the above said conspiracy, the accused persons viz.
M/s.Zen Motors (A1) represented by A-2 to A-6 had dishonestly and fraudulently allowed an amount of Rs.14.32 lacs to be paid out of loan account to various private parties who were not connected with the genuine business transactions of M/s.Zen Motors, during the period 24.03.2000 to 27.12.2000, thereby misappropriated the said amount, which should have been used for their genuine business transactions.
9. That for the role played by Shri K.Ashok Nayak, the then Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore, in facilitating the above said transactions, Regular Departmental Action proceedings for the imposition of major penalty has been initiated and that the competent authority at Union Bank of India, Head Office, Mumbai has not accorded sanction for his prosecution.
-7-10. That in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy, the accused persons viz. M/s.Zen Motors (A1) represented by A-2 to A-6 had dishonestly and fraudulently induced Union Bank of India, J.P.Nagar Branch, Bangalore to part with their funds to the tune of nearly Rs.1.25 crores being the total outstanding in the loan account of M/s.Zen Motors as on 05.09.2005, thereby exposing Union Bank of India to an undue pecuniary loss of the said amount, and had thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420 IPC and substantive offences thereof".
4. In a decision reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6660 (Vinod Raghuvanshi Vs. Ajay Arora), the Supreme Court has held in paragraph-19, which reads thus:-
"19. It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the Court should not "kill a stillborn child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling -8- circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance.
When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither the Court can embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or nor the Court should judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein. Moreso, the charge- sheet filed or charges framed at the initial stage can be altered/amended or a charge can be added at the subsequent stage, after the evidence is adduced in view of the provisions of Section 216, Cr.P.C. So, the order passed even by the High Court or this Court is subject to the order which would be passed by the trial Court at a later stage."
5. The afore-stated allegations made against petitioner are not inherently improbable or highly absurd. At this stage, there are no reasons to suspect -9- the contents of final report. In the circumstances, the final report filed in C.C.No.34610/2006 cannot be quashed.
6. The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.