Karnataka High Court
Mahadevayya S/O Veerayya Gachinamath vs Smt. Kasturibai W/O Bhimanagouda Patil on 19 November, 2013
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2013
Before
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH
Criminal Petitions 15614, 15615, 15616 and 15617 / 2013
Between:
Mahadevayya, 50 yrs
S/o Veerayya Gachchinamath
Class I Contractor & Managing Director of
DSSSS Ltd, Hirebevanur, Indi Taluk
Bijapur District
R/o Plot # 155, Vivek Nagar
Opp: Jai Santoshi Ma Temple Petitioner
Bijapur common
(By Sri Raj,ohan S Lagali, Adv.)
And:
In Crl.P 15614 & 15615 / 2013
Balasaheb, 52 yrs
S/o Sanganagouda Patil
Agriculturist & Business
R/o Hire Bevanur, Indi Tq
Bijapur Respondent
In Crl.P 15616/2013
Smt Kasturibai, 68 yrs
2
W/o Bhimanagouda Patil
R/o Hire Bevanur, Indi Tq
Bijapur District Respondent
In Crl.P 15617/2013
Smt Sushilabai, 75 yrs
W/o Sanganagouda Patil
R/o Hire Bevanur, Indi Tq
Bijapur Respondent
(By Sri Shivanand Patil, Adv.)
Criminal Petitions are filed under S.482 of the Criminal Procedure
Code praying to quash the order dated 19.3.2013 in PC 415/2012, CC
636/2013 ; PC 414/2012, CC 628/2013 ; PC 416, CC 637 /2013 ; PC
417/2012, CC 638/2013 by the III Addl. JMFC, Bijapur.
Petitions coming on for Admission this day, the court made the
following:-
ORDER
Petitions have been filed praying to quash the order dated 19.3.2013 by the III Addl. JMFC, Bijapur in CC 636, 628, 637 and 638 / 2013.
According to the petitioner, on the private complaint filed by respondents who are the promoters of Dnyana Yogi Sri Shivakumar Swamiji Sugars Ltd of which petitioner is arrayed as the Managing Director that he has transferred his shares in favour of the 2nd accused since 3 there was no objection from any quarter as to such transfer, it is stated the complaint is rather civil in nature, however, learned Magistrate has entertained the complaint and taken cognizance for the offences under Ss.109, 114, 129 B, 149, 205, 207, 420, 423, 467, 478, 471, 472 and 489 C, IPC. It is also submitted, the offence under S.483 C is in respect of counterfeit coins, notes, etc which is not applicable to the case on hand. Learned Magistrate without application of mind, having taken cognizance, issued process which is totally abuse of process of law. Accordingly, referring to several decisions to stand by his contention, it is submitted by the counsel that at the threshold, the complaint filed against the petitioner has to be dismissed and the cognizance taken has to be set aside.
Counsel representing the respondents / complainants submitted, petitioner has forged the signature of the complainants and transferred/sold the shares not only that of the petitioner but he has also sold the shares belonging to the complainants thereby the control over the company has been transferred indirectly without following the norms. Thus it is submitted, relying on the case of M N Damani Vs S K Sinha & Ors - AIR 2001 SC 2037, the imputations allegedly made against the complainant 4 with an intention to harm his reputation and prima facie case appearing to be made out against the accused, the circumstances under which and with what intention imputations were made can be decided only based on evidence and proceedings are not liable to be quashed. Counsel has also relied upon another decision in the case of M Krishnan Vs Vijay Singh & Anr - AIR 2001 SC 3014 to contend that during the pendency of civil litigation on the allegation of cheating and fraud, proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that matter was primarily of a civil nature, and the same was pending in the civil court.
In the instant case, according to the petitioner's counsel, complainants have falsely implicated him to wreak vengeance to remove the petitioner from the post of Jt. Managing Director. However, it is the submission of the respondents' counsel that virtually petitioner has not only transferred the shares belonging to him but the shares of the complainants as well and others by forging the complainants' signature thereby transferring the administration of the Company to the 4th accused without any authority of law.
5
The allegation against the petitioner is with respect to transfer of shares not only belonging to the petitioner but also of others including that of the complainants by forging documents/signature, also stating that the original share documents are lost, such documents were got created and were transferred in favour of the 4th accused. Though it is stated there is no objection from any quarter, the complaint is filed against this petitioner based on the sworn statement recorded and process has been issued. When such material is placed alleging creation of documents stating that the original documents are lost, it has to be verified either during framing of charge or while seeking for discharge or in the course of trial. At the threshold, merely on the submission made by the petitioner, the same cannot be quashed.
I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel with regard to abuse of process and exercise of inherent power under S.482, Cr.PC to stall fraudulent or frivolous proceedings. But here is a case against the petitioner of creating new/fake shares to transfer it in favour of the 2nd accused. All the shares belonging to the petitioner have been transferred apart from that of the others. In that guise, administration of the 6 company is said to be transferred to the 4th accused which of course, is without the consent and concurrence of other share holders, as is submitted by the respondents' counsel.
In that view of the matter, petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to either approach the trial court seeking for discharge or for consequential orders. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Judge An