Telangana High Court
Sri Ravi Sanghi, Hyd. vs The State Of Telangana., Rep By Pp ... on 11 August, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No.14564 OF 2014
ORDER:
This criminal petition is directed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash proceedings in C.C.No.892 OF 2013 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Hyderabad registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned counsel for the second respondent- complainant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent- State. Perused the records.
3. The second respondent herein, who, is the de facto complainant filed complaint against the petitioner/accused before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Hyderabad alleging that the petitioner is the Managing Director of one of the group companies viz., M/s.Sanghi Industries Limited and the second respondent is overseeing the affairs of M/s.Sanghi Polyesters Ltd., as the Managing Director. The petitioner hatched a design to send out the second 2 respondent and his another brother by name Sri Anand Sanghi from Sanghi Group Industries in order to have wrongful gain. The petitioner created false litigations by filing many cases and instigated third parties to create litigation against the second respondent and having regard to the same, the second respondent and his brother Anand Sanghi decided to accept the compromise proposal putforth by the petitioner. At request of the second respondent, their family well wisher by name Sri Balaram Jakkar resolved the dispute by suggesting an amicable solution. The petitioner as part of the settlement, agreed and accepted for 25% share to the second respondent in all the Sanghi properties. Further, the petitioner has also agreed to pay Rs.735 crores to the second respondent towards full and final settlement of his 25% share in Sanghi Group companies and the same was reduced into writing and in confirmation of arriving compromise, the petitioner signed the same.
4. It is stated that on 30.06.2008, the Company Law Board has directed the petitioner and other three brothers to workout compromise pertaining to all their assets i.e. Sanghi Group Industries. Thereupon, the petitioner and the second respondent and other two 3 brothers have reported their compromise and the same was recorded vide proceedings dated 14.10.2008 by the Company Law Board.
5. It is further stated that the second respondent reminded the petitioner to pay his entitled amount of Rs.735 crores, but the petitioner dragged for the payment of said amount on one or other pretext. Subsequently, all the four brothers executed a Memorandum of Understanding (M.O.U.) dated 23.06.2007, wherein the petitioner agreed for 25% share each in all Sanghi Group companies and there was clear commitment of 25% share to the second respondent. As per the M.O.U., the petitioner deviated from the commitment and started acting detrimental to the interest of the second respondent.
6. It is stated that the Sanghi Cement situated in Gujarat State is a division of Sanghi Industries Ltd., to which the petitioner is the Managing Director and has got full control over its business affairs. The petitioner took advantage of same and clandestinely sold away non-duty paid imported coal reserves in black market and wrongfully enriched. The petitioner has pocketed huge amounts accrued out of illegal sale of coal in black market. Due to said illegal acts on the part of the petitioner to whom Sanghi cement is entrusted resulted in heavy monetary loss to the second respondent and other two stake 4 holders. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Authorities have initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC for indulging in black marketing of non-duty paid coal and the said case is pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhuj, Gujarat.
7. It is also stated that the petitioner committed several irregularities in respect of functioning of Sanghi Industries Ltd., and clandestinely evaded excise duty to the Government to the tune of Rs.20.00 crores and pocketed that entire amount for himself by tampering accounts of the company.
8. It is further stated that the petitioner created several hurdles to the second respondent in the conduct of business of M/s.Sanghi Polyesters Ltd., The petitioner has deliberately committed breach of agreement dated 04.07.2008. The petitioner filed application before the Company Law Board and obtained status-quo orders dated 23.10.2008 with regard to shareholding and also fixed assets of all Sanghi group Companies. The petitioner conspicuously remained silent with regard to payment of the second respondent's amount and his deliberate dragging on said payment for the last three and half years, but on the other hand sought orders to maintain status-quo in 5 regard to all Sanghi Group of companies without paying amount due to the second respondent.
9. It is stated that all the acts of the petitioner establishes that he committed the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust etc.,
10. The said complaint was referred by the learned Magistrate to the Station House Officer, Sulthan Bazaar Police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and the Station House Officer registered the same in crime No.200/2012 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the aforesaid offences and the same was registered as C.C.No.892 of 2013. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent alleged that having entered into compromise dated 04.07.2008 committed breach of agreement, prima facie, do not constitute any offence. Even presuming that agreement was entered between all the brothers and such agreement was not implemented, the second respondent has to approach the appropriate Court to get the compromise implemented and no offence can be made out for 6 initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the Director of Revenue Intelligence authorities have initiated criminal proceedings for indulging in black-marketing of non-duty paid and in the said case further proceedings were dropped against the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the second respondent filed application under Section 257 Cr.P.C. along with affidavit in the trial Court to permit withdrawal of C.C.No.892 of 2013. However, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that there are no instructions about the said application and they are opposing the said withdrawal.
11. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations of F.I.R./complaint or the charge sheet prima facie do not constitute the alleged offences and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be abuse of process of law. Therefore, prayed to allow the petition.
12. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:
1. Mitesh Kumar J.Sha v.The State of Karnata1
2. State of Haryana v.Ch.Bhajan Lal2
3. Ram Biraji Devi v. Umesh Kumar Singh3 1 Criminal Appeal No.1285 of 2021, dated 26.10.2021 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.9871 of 2019 2 (1992) Suppl.1 SCC P.335 7
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the allegations made in the F.I.R./complaint and charge sheet prima facie discloses the commission of alleged offence and made out case against the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
14. Learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the following decisions:
1) Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat4
2) Tilly Gifford v.Michael Floyd Eshwar5
3) Lakshman v.State of Karnataka6
4) HDFC Securities Limited v.State of Maharashtra7
5) N.Soundaram v.P.K.Pounraj8
6) A.Chandrasekhar v.The State of Telangana9
7) Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited v.State of Uttar Pradesh.10
8) Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v.State of Maharashtra.11
15. A perusal of the complaint/F.I.R. and the allegations of the charge sheet discloses that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Sanghi Group of Industries and the second respondent is the Managing Director of M/s.Sanghi Polysters Ltd., The petitioner hatched a plan to send out the second respondent and his another 3 (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 669 4 (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 104 5 2017 (2) ALD (Crl.) 638 (SC) 6 (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 677 7 (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 640 8 (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 616 9 Criminal Petition No.1621 of 2021,dated 02.07.2021 10 (2021) 5 Supreme Court Cases 795 11 (2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 350 8 brother by name Sri C.Anand Sanghi from Sanghi Group of Industries. As part of the plan, he created false allegation by filing false case against the second respondent. Then the compromise proposal was putforth by the petitioner and in the presence of their family well wisher by name Balaram Jakkar, the disputes are resolved and the petitioner agreed to accept 25% share to the second respondent in all Sanghi properties and also agreed to pay Rs.735 crores towards full and final settlement of his 25% share in Sanghi Group companies and on receipt of the said amount, the second respondent shall relinquish all his right, title and interest in Sanghi Group Industries in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner signed on the said paper along with said conciliator Sri Balaram Jakkar.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the said compromise even if, assumed to be true, the only remedy available to the second respondent to approach the civil Court and not to initiate the criminal proceedings.
17. The second main allegation leveled against the petitioner is that being the Managing Director of Sanghi Cement situated at Gujarat State is a division of Sanghi Industries Limited, has imported coal 9 worth of several crores from abroad and sold non-duty paid imported coal in black market and gained wrongfully. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Authorities have initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. The initiation of said proceedings against the petitioner show dishonest and fraudulent acts committed by the petitioner in conduct of business of Sanghi Industries Ltd., It is also alleged that the petitioner committed several irregularities in functioning of Sanghi Limited and clandestinely evaded excise duty to the Government to the tune of Rs.20.00 crores and pocketed all that amount for himself by tampering the accounts of the said company.
18. The other allegations against the petitioner is that deliberately he failed to implement the agreement dated 04.07.2008 to knock away 25% share of the second respondent. The petitioner also filed an application before Company Law Board and obtained an order dated 23.10.2008 to maintain status-quo in regard to the share holding and also fixed assets of all Sanghi Group companies. The petitioner has not dematted the above shares inspite of several reminders by the second respondent.
10
19. Having heard the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent and a perusal of the material on record, a perusal of the complaint/F.I.R. and charge sheet allegations briefly narrated above prima facie, do constitute the alleged offences that are alleged against the petitioner, I am of the view that as rightly contended by learned counsel for the second respondent that the correctness or otherwise of the allegations has to be decided only in the trial. As thorough investigation was done on the allegations of the complaint/F.I.R. and charge sheet was also filed, at the stage of issuance of process to commence the trial, it is not proper to stifle the proceedings by deciding the merits of the contentions on behalf of the petitioner. Apart from this, though learned Senior Counsel has contended and answered each and every allegation of the complaint and charge sheet, this Court of the view that they have to be necessarily appreciated during the course of trial and not at this stage. Since the allegations of the material on record prima facie constituting the offences alleged against the petitioner, at this juncture, the criminal proceedings cannot be interdicted. 11
20. In Bhajan Lal's case (2 supra), the Apex Court held at para Nos.102 and 103 as under:
"In the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulate and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:
(1) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused;
(2) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code;
(3) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused;
(4) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code;
(5) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused;
(6) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the 12 proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party;
(7) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.
21. Keeping the above principles in view, a perusal of the allegations of the complaint/F.I.R. and charge sheet, I am of the view that the present case does not come under any of the parameters of Bhajanlal's case (2 supra) to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
22. As stated above, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner or the defences raised may have to be considered during the course of trial and they cannot be considered in a petition filed under 482 Cr.P.C.
23. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is relevant here to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar's case (8 supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para No.5 as under:
13
"Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the Trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification for the High Court to interfere. (State of Karnataka v.M.Devendrappa12).
24. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as stated above and in view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the contentions or the defences taken by the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner herein failed to make out any case to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.892 of 2013 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Hence, the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Interim order granted earlier shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 11.08.2022 Nvl 12 14