Telangana High Court
L. Shailaja vs The State Of Telangana on 6 June, 2022
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4375 OF 2020
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 344 of 2020 of Nacharam Police Station, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the said crime. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri B,.Shiva Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Khaja Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent - State and Sri Rakesh, learned counsel, representing M/s Resu Law Office, appearing for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record.
3. The allegations against the petitioners in the complaint dated 02.09.2020 lodged by the 2nd respondent are that the 1st petitioner/A.1 is wife of 4th petitioner/A.4 and the 4th petitioner is father of 2nd and 3rd petitioners/A.2 and A.3. 2nd respondent, 1st and 2nd petitioners are the Managing Partners of M/s Seiko Polyclosures, situated at No.11-8/A-1, Nacharam. The 1st and 2nd petitioners have resorted to several illegal 2 activities with selfish intention and cheated him and his another partner who is his sister-in-law by name L.Divya, wife of L.Kranti Kumar. They entered into partnership agreement in 2013 in respect of manufacturing Plastic products and started business. He worked with dedication right from the beginning and developed the company. He invested a sum of one Crore in the said company. He also mortgaged two houses of his parents' with the A.P. State Finance Corporation (APSFC), Abids, Hyderabad for obtaining machinery loan, as collateral security. 1st and 2nd petitioners have started a benami company in the name and style of 'Viswin Plastic Traders' in the name of his younger brother L.Naveen Kumar, and diverted the business of this company to it. They are avoiding his company's transaction amounts, and doing business with 'Viswin Plastic Traders'. They did every illegal activity in the premises of M/s Seiko Polyclosures Company. They did under-billing of the products and avoided the monies obtained by selling the company products to clients and diverting the cash amounts to the personal accounts of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4/A.2 to A.4 maintained in other banks. The amounts obtained by selling his company products to the clients located in several districts and other States, are being made to be credited to their personal and other bank accounts. Thus the petitioners 3 have committed money laundering and havaala activities. They are selling the company products without issuing bills directly selling to the customers and are not showing the GST, IT and other amounts. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are receiving money directly from the customers and some times through company workers. The petitioners have not shown the sale amount to a tune of Ten Crores and evaded the tax payable to the Government, and thus minting black money. They are submitting false details to the Income Tax Department and deceived the Government. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 committed breach of trust and other economic offences like minting black money by evading tax.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that one Gondi Veeranna who is their relative had offered property as collateral security on behalf of their company to the APSFC, he has withdrawn the said property without obtaining consent of all the partners of the company in an illegal way. The 4th petitioner is the chief instigator and responsible for illegal, havaala, money laundering and deceitful activities of the company. The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 got him and also his younger sister-in-law removed from the company and caused them huge financial loss and mental agony.
4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the contents of the complaint lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners herein. There is suppression of facts. The complaint is barred by limitation. The suit vide O.S.No.691 of 2018 is pending and the said fact is suppressed in the complaint. There is an arbitration clause in the partnership deed and the amended partnership deed. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are not even partners of the said firm. The allegation levelled against the petitioners herein are vague and omnibus. The 2nd respondent is trying to convert the civil proceedings into criminal proceedings.
6. On the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.PC. by one Varaprasad, learned Magistrate has referred the same to the Police, Nacharam Police Station, who in turn registered a case in Cr.No.114 of 2019 against the 1st petitioner herein and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi has quashed the proceedings in the said crime vide order dated 29.10.2019 in Crl.P.No.4620 of 2019 considering the fact that there is no cheating and criminal breach of trust. With the said submissions, he sought to quash the proceedings in the present crime against the petitioners herein.
5
7. Whereas, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the said complaint lodged by said Varaprasad, is nothing to do with the allegations made by the present complaint. Mere suppression of pendency of suit vide O.S.No.691 of 2018 will not entitle the petitioners seeking quashemnt of the proceedings in Cr.No.344 of 2020. There are several factual aspects which requires investigation during the course of investigation by the Investigating Officer. The petitioners herein, instead of co-operating with the Investigating Officer by furnishing information and documents as sought by him in concluding the investigation, filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.344 of 2020. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present criminal petition.
8. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, the Police Nacharam Police Station, have registered a case in Cr.No.344 of 2020 for the aforesaid offences.
9. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner Nos.1 and 2, respondent No.2 and one L. Kranti Kumar, have joined as partners in a partnership firm i.e. Seiko Polyclosures under a partnership deed dated 18.03.2013. The said partnership firm was constituted for the purpose of carrying on the business of manufacturing polyclosures and other plastic 6 items. The 2nd respondent is having 40% share, whereas, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are having 20% share each in the said partnership firm. Thereafter, they have entered into an amended partnership deed dated 13.11.2013. As per the said amended partnership deed, the 1st petitioner is having 40%, 2nd petitioner is having 10%, the 2nd respondent is having 29% share in the said firm. As per the said amended deed, one L.Divya w/o L.Kranti Kumar, sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent and S.Latha, w/o S.Kamalakar, were included as partners of the said partnership firm.
10. It is relevant to note that in both the partnership deeds, there is an arbitration clause. Perusal of the record including the counter filed by the 2nd respondent would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent with regard to affairs of the said partnership firm. On the complaint lodged by the 2nd petitioner herein, the very same police, have registered a case in Cr.No.457 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 448 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation had filed charge sheet. The said Calendar Case is pending. The 2nd petitioner herein had also filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has referred the same to the very same Police, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.167 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 7 447, 307, 406, 506 read with 120-B of IPC. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed final report closing the said First Information Report.
11. The 2nd respondent had also filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint to the very same Police, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.168 of 2018 against the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 420, 506, 403, 406 and 464 of IPC. The Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the petitioners herein and the said Calendar Case is pending.
12. In the counter, the 2nd respondent claims that the petitioner No.1 is holding 40%, the petitioner No.2 is holding 10% and the 2nd respondent is holding 20% share and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent by name L. Divya is holding 21% share in the amended partnership firm. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and the 2nd respondent are the partners from the beginning. The respondent No.2 is Managing Partner and he is still continuing.
13. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein have filed a suit vide O.S.No.691 of 2018 before the Principal Junior civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district at L.B.Nagar, against 8 the 2nd respondent and his sister-in-law L.Divya for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property i.e. M/s Seiko Polyclosures situated at Plot No.118/A (11/8/A-1) Sy.No.50 IDA, Nacharam, Hyderabad. Initially interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.1186 of 2018 in the said suit vide order dated 02.11.2018 and the same was later modified as status-quo.
14. Perusal of the record would also reveal that one Vardanapu Purushotham Vara Prasad, friend of the 2nd respondent, had filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate has referred the same to the Police, Narsapuram Town Police Station, who in turn, registered a case in Cr.No.114 of 2019 against the 1st petitioner only for the offences under Section 420 of IPC. The allegation levelled against the 1st petitioner herein in the said complaint is that she has induced the said Varaprasad by making him to believe and invest an amount of Rs.60 Lakhs in the said partnership firm i.e. Seiko Polyclosures. The 1st petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. vide Crl.P.No.4620 of 2019 to quash the proceedings in the said crime and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi had quashed the proceedings in the said crime vide order dated 29.10.2019. 9
15. The said facts would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent with regard to the affairs of the said firm. The above said suit vide O.S.No.691 of 2018 is pending and there is a status-quo order.
16. As stated supra, in both the partnership deeds, there is an arbitration clause. It appears that none of the parties have invoked the said arbitration clause. However, in the complaint, dated 02.09.2020, the 2nd respondent has made several allegations including allegations that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have removed the 2nd respondent, his sister- in-law from the said partnership firm and also withdrew the collateral security in respect of the said partnership firm without their consent. The above stated crimes are also pending between the parties. Thus, there are several factual aspects to be investigated into by the Investigating officer during the course of investigation. The matter is at crime stage.
17. It is relevant to note that in M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd vs. The State Of Maharashtra1, the Apex Court held that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than 1 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 10 an ordinary rule. Even in Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh2, the Apex Court referring to the various judgments rendered by it categorically held that the High Courts in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the proceedings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases with extreme caution.
18. Coming to the case on hand, it is not the rarest of the rare case. Prima facie, the allegations needs to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Therefore, the petitioners herein failed to make out any case to quash the proceedings against them in the subject crime and thus, the present criminal petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. This Court vide order dated 29.04.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in Crl.P.No.4375 of 2020 granted stay of all further proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners herein in the present crime pending on the file of the Nacharam Police Station.
20. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that prima facie there are certain 2 AIR 2021 SC 931, 11 specific allegations against all the petitioners herein and that the punishment prescribed for the offences alleged against the petitioners herein is seven years and below seven years, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.344 of 2020 pending on the file of the Nacharam Police Station, to follow the procedure laid down under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., and also the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another3. The Investigating Officer/Station House Officer is also directed not to arrest the petitioners till completion of investigation and filing of final report. The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer, by furnishing information and documents sought by him in completing investigation.
Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:06.06.2022 Vvr.
3 (2014) 8 SCC 273