Telangana High Court
P. Kaushik Rao, vs The State Of Telangana, on 25 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Criminal Revision Case Nos.916 & 917 of 2024
Between:
P.Kaushik Rao
...Petitioner/De facto complainant
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
And Others
...Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 25.02.2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
____________________
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
+ Criminal Revision Case Nos.916 & 917 of 2024
% 25.02.2025
# Between:
P.Kaushik Rao
...Petitioner/De facto complainant
v.
The State of Telangana,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor
High Court, Hyderabad
And Others
...Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri T.Niranjan Reddy
learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri
T.Pranav Rao
^ Counsel for the respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Damalapati Srinivas
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 (1987) 1 SCC 288
2 (2021) 17 SCC 318
3
(1987) 1 SCC 288
4
AIR 1980 SC 1510
5
(2014) 10 SCC 380
6
2007 (2) ALT (Cri) 325 (A.P.)
7 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 339 (A.P)
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.916 & 917 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
1 Aggrieved by the docket orders dated 08.6.2024 passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.623 of 2024 in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and Criminal M.P.No.622 of 2024 in C.C.No.9288 of 2022 passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, permitting withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioners, these two revisions have been preferred by the de-facto complainant.
2 The factual matrix was that M/s. Associated Broadcasting Company (P) Limited (ABCPL) is running various TV channels under the Brand "TV9" and the companies namely M/s. Chintalapati Holdings Pvt. Ltd and iLabs Venture Capital Fund who had majority companies, offered to sell their entire shareholding of ABCPL and approached the M/s. Alanda Media (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). Thereupon, the complainant acquired majority equity shareholding offered by ABCPL as per the share purchase agreement entered on 24.8.2018 and the entire consideration for purchase of equity had been paid on the even date. Subsequently, the majority shares of ABCPL were transferred in favour of the complainant through DMat 4 account on 27.8.2018. Further the ABCPL had noted the transfer of shares in favourof the complainant by passing necessary resolutions. Pursuant to the said transfer of shares, the complainant became the majority stake holders of M/s.ABCPL and their nominee Directors were also appointed on the Board of ABCPL duly obtaining the approval of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), Government of India under the applicable guidelines vide their letter dated 29.3.2019. The entire transactions have taken place in accordance with law and there is no grievance whatsoever to the shareholders who have sold their equity to the complainant in ABCPL, which is operating television channels in several languages under the brand "TV9". Further, they conducted the Board Meeting on 23.4.2019.
3 It is further stated as a part of criminal conspiracy and with an ill-will to derail the operations of the company and thereby cause wrongful financial loss and damage to the reputation of the company, accused Nos.1 and 2 together created false and fabricated ante dated documents with malice and fraudulent intention wherein A.2 allegedly entered into share purchase agreement on ante date i.e. 20.02.2018 with A.1 Ravi Prakash and paid an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs for acquiring 40,000 equity shares belonging to Ravi Prakash-A.1 in ABCPL. Since the transfer of shares was not effected till date, A.2-Shivaji 5 allegedly issued a notice to A.1-Ravi Prakash on 15.3.2019 and immediately A.1 has also allegedly issued a reply on 17.3.2019. He further refused to conduct board meetings by showing all these frivolous issues. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Cr.No.84 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 469, 471 and 120(B) IPC and under Sections 66 and 72 of the IT Act. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein for the above said offences. The said case was taken on file in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I AJCJ at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.
4 With identical contents the very same complainant lodged another complaint with the Cyberabad Cyber crime police, which was registered as Cr.No.87 of 2019 on 30.4.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000. The further allegations in the said complaint were that Ravi Prakash, with an intention to prevent the uploading the names of new additional directors by filing Form No.DIR
- 12 to the ROC and to stop the four new Directors in functioning in such a way to protect the best interest of the company, has 6 committed the crime of forgery of the signature of the company Secretary - Mr. Devender Agarwal and uploaded the forged document and has given false information of resignation of Mr. Devender Agarwal as Company Secretary to the Registrar of Companies though the Company Secretary had attended to his duties till the A.N. of 27.4.2019. Thus, the accused in this case were acting detrimental to the interest of the company by forging false documents. The said case was also registered as C.C.No.9288 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC and Sections 66-C, 66-D of IT Act 5 While both the above cases were pending before the Court of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I AJCJ at Kukatpally, Cyberabad, the Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the State, filed two Criminal M.Ps, vide Crl.M.P.No.622 of 2024 in C.C.No.9288 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2024 in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 seeking permission of the Court to put on record the withdrawal of prosecution by the State against the accused. The learned trial Court by order dated 08.6.2024 allowed both the Criminal M.Ps and accorded permission to withdraw from prosecution in the above two cases. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed these two criminal revision cases.
76 As could be seen from the averments made in both the Crl.M.Ps the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor urged the following grounds before the Court below while seeking permission to withdraw from prosecution against the accused persons:
"8(1) The prospect of successful prosecution is very bleak and remote in the light of the evidence and material made available to the prosecution as well as in light of the impediments towards the admissibility of most documentary evidence in the Hon'ble Court.
8(2) The Media be it Print or Digital is considered the Fourth Pillar of our democracy and its in public interest that the media agencies and the journalists involved be free of any restrictions (within the permissible limitations of the Constitutional guarantees), to express themselves and conduct their business without any coercion or undue pressure and its in public interest to safeguard the same, especially in the light of the current situations.
8(3) Additionally in this case, going by the material made available to the prosecution in the larger sense the implication of persons seems as a result of political personal and civil in nature vendetta.
8(4) The case materials available when examined in detail, envisioning the arm chair approach of the Hon'ble judiciary, encompasses a civil in nature dispute, cloaked and coloured into a criminal case, whereas the NCLT, Civil Courts and likewise adjudicational forums are more truthfully competent rather than an criminal trial more so since its concerned with copy right violations or passing off or shareholding patterns and violations thereof per se civil and commercial transactional disputes in nature, and any rightful justice to be rendered would be only upon relief upon those aspects and not the possible remote incarceration of the purported accused persons except to incapacitate them with a dangling sword to gain demanded outcome at one's whims and fancies;
8(5) Looking at the flow of the proposal and trusting the wisdom and application of the mind of the Commissioner of Police, and thereon the Director General of Police and thereof the State Government, it can be safely presumed that there is inexpediency of the prosecution for reasons of the State of Telangana and its public policy and considering the facts and materials of the case in the wider sense of public welfare and maintenance of peace in society with freedoms enshrined in the constitution by the State of Telangana."8
7 Basing on the above the averments made in the Crl.M.Ps, the trial Court, vide order dated 8.6.2024, passed the following orders in both the petitions:
"Heard. Considering the G.Os by State & the reasons furnished by the learned APPO, permission & consent is hereby accorded to withdraw from prosecution & the petition is allowed".
8 Sri T.Niranjan Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri T.Pranav Rao, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the learned Magistrate has not considered the effect of withdrawal of prosecution on the society, particularly, when the averments in the charge sheets are very serious in nature. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate failed to see that final report was filed categorically stating that the accused committed the offence of forgery, producing forged documents before the competent authority and committed the offence of cheating, which allegations are substantiated by the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C as well as the forensic lab report. It is his predominant contention that the Public Prosecutor who is officer of the Court can file application on his own satisfaction and that the Public Prosecutor has to file application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. only on being satisfied that valid reasons are made out to withdraw the prosecution. But in the present case, the application filed by the Public Prosecutor does not explicitly mention any of the grounds germane for withdrawal of prosecution. 9 He further contended that the Public Prosecutor without even referring to the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses and the FSL report, filed the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the Public Prosecutor before Court below has not applied his mind independently but simply followed the directions given by the superior police officers as well as the Government and the Court below also has not considered the said aspect before passing the impugned orders, which are mechanical. Hence he prayed to set aside the impugned orders.
9 On the other hand, Sri Damalapati Srinivas, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the complainant filed the present revision only to harass this respondent and causing mental agony as the withdrawal of prosecution case ultimately is likely to end in acquittal and no public cause or policy is affected by such withdrawal. He further submitted that withdrawal of the case is based on a G.O. dated 15.3.2024 issued by the Government of Telangana and that G.O. is based on the detailed report given by the Director General of Police, Telangana and after considering various aspects and also based on perusal of records connected to the case, as such the impugned orders cannot be treated as non-reasoned order. At best the complainant ought to have challenged the said G.O 10 instead of challenging the impugned orders by way of these revision cases. The consent given by the learned Magistrate is based on the application of mind by the learned APP and it cannot be termed as a simple docket order. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments: 1) Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar 1 2) State of Kerala Vs. K.Ajith 2.
10 On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order is based on the sound reasoning submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor before the Court below and hence the impugned orders need no interference.
11 In the light of the above factual scenario it is apt to refer to the relevant section of law, which envisages as under:
12 Section 321 Cr.P.C entrusts the decision to withdraw from a prosecution to the public prosecutor but the consent of the court is required for withdrawal; the public prosecutor may withdraw from a prosecution not merely on the ground of paucity of evidence but also to further the broad ends of public justice; the public prosecutor must formulate an independent opinion; mere fact that initiative has come from the government will not vitiate an application for withdrawal. 1 (1987) 1 SCC 288 2 (2021) 17 SCC 318 11 13 In The State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith and Ors.(2 supra) it was held that before deciding whether to grant its consent the court must be satisfied that: (a) The function of the public prosecutor not improperly exercised; (b) application made in good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice; (c) application does not suffer from such improprieties or illegalities as would cause manifest injustice if consent were to be given; (d) The grant of consent sub-serves the administration of justice; and (e) permission not sought with an ulterior purpose; (vi) Court would be justified in scrutinizing the nature and gravity of the offence ; and (vii) Court may interfere in a case where there has been a failure of the trial judge to apply the correct principles.
14 Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar 3 wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held at Para Nos.78, 79 and 80 as follows:
78. The section gives no indication as to the grounds on which the Public Prosecutor may make the application, or the considerations on which the court is to grant its consent. The initiative is that of the Public Prosecutor and what the court has to do is only to give its consent and not to determine any matter judicially. The judicial function implicit in the exercise of the judicial discretion for granting the consent would normally mean that the court has to satisfy itself that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised, or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes.
79. The court's function is to give consent. This section does not obligate the court to record reasons before consent is given. However, I should not be taken to hold that consent of the court is a matter of course. When the Public Prosecutor makes the application for withdrawal after taking into consideration all the materials before him, the court exercises its judicial discretion by considering such materials and on such consideration, either gives consent or declines consent. The section 3 (1987) 1 SCC 288 12 should not be construed to mean that the court has to give a detailed reasoned order when it gives consent. If on a reading of the order giving consent, a higher court is satisfied that such consent was given on an overall consideration of the materials available, the order giving consent has necessarily to be upheld.
80. It would be useful to compare the scope of the court's power under Section 321 with some other sections of the Code. There are some provisos in the Code which relate to the manner in which courts have to exercise their jurisdiction in pending cases when applications are made for their withdrawal or when the court finds that there is no ground to proceed with the cases. Sections 203, 227, 245, 257 and 258 are some such sections. Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint at the initial stage itself if he is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. .........."
15 Rajender Kumar Jain vs. State through Spl. Police Establishment and Others 4 wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held at Para Nos. 14 and 25 as under:
14. We have referred to the precedents of this Court where it has been said that paucity of evidence is not the only ground on which the public prosecutor may withdraw from the prosecution. In the past, we have often known how expedient and necessary it is in the public interest for the public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecutions arising out of mass agitations, communal riots, regional disputes, industrial conflicts, student unrest etc. Wherever issues involve the emotions and there is a surcharge of violence in the atmosphere it has often been found necessary to withdraw from prosecutions in order to restore peace, to free the atmosphere from the surcharge of violence, to bring about a peaceful settlement of issues and to preserve the calm which may follow the storm. To persist with prosecutions where emotive issues are involved in the name of vindicating the law may even be utterly counter-productive. An elected Government, sensitive and responsive to the feelings and emotions of the people, will be amply justified if for the purpose of creating an atmosphere of goodwill or for the purpose of not disturbing a calm which has descended it decides not to prosecute the offenders involved or not to proceed further with prosecution already launched. In such matters who but the Government can and should decide, in the first instance, whether it should be baneful or beneficial to launch or continue prosecutions. If the Government decides that it would be in the public interest to withdraw from prosecutions, how is the Government to go about this task?
25. Before bidding farewell to these cases it may be appropriate for us to say that criminal justice is not a plaything and a criminal court is not a playground for politicking. Political fervour should not convert prosecution into persecution, nor political favour reward wrongdoer by withdrawal from prosecution. If political fortunes are allowed to be reflected in the processes of the court very soon the credibility of the rule of law will be lost. So we insist that courts when moved for permission for withdrawal from prosecution must be vigilant and inform themselves fully before granting consent. While it would be obnoxious and objectionable for a Public Prosecutor to allow himself to be ordered about, he should appraise himself from the government and thereafter appraise the court the host of factors relevant to 4 AIR 1980 SC 1510 13 the question of withdrawal from the cases. But under no circumstances should he allow himself to become anyone's stooge.
16 Bairam Muralidhar vs. State of Andhra Pradesh5 wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held at Para Nos.18 and 19 as under:
18. The central question is whether the Public Prosecutor has really applied his mind to all the relevant materials on record and satisfied himself that the withdrawal from the prosecution would subserve the cause of public interest or not. Be it stated, it is the obligation of the Public Prosecutor to state what material he has considered.
It has to be set out in brief. The court as has been held in Abdul Karim case{(2008) 8 SCC 710}, is required to give an informed consent. It is obligatory on the part of the court to satisfy itself that from the material it can reasonably be held that the withdrawal of the prosecution would serve the public interest. It is not within the domain of the court to weigh the material. However, it is necessary on the part of the court to see whether the grant of consent would thwart or stifle the course of law or cause manifest injustice. A court while giving consent under Section 321 of the Code is required to exercise its judicial discretion, and judicial discretion, as settled in law, is not to be exercised in a mechanical manner. The court cannot give such consent on a mere asking. It is expected of the court to consider the material on record to see that the application had been filed in good faith and it is in the interest of public interest and justice. Another aspect the court is obliged to see is whether such withdrawal would advance the cause of justice. It requires exercise of careful and concerned discretion because certain crimes are against the State and the society as a collective demands justice to be done. That maintains the law and order situation in the society. The Public Prosecutor cannot act like the post office on behalf of the State Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion that the withdrawal of the case would really subserve the public interest at large. An order of the Government on the Public Prosecutor in this regard is not binding. He cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code. He is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective.
19. In the case at hand, as the application filed by the Public Prosecutor would show that he had mechanically stated about the conditions precedent, it cannot be construed that he has really perused the materials and applied his independent mind solely because he has so stated. The application must indicate perusal of the materials by stating what are the materials he has perused, may be in brief, and whether such withdrawal of the prosecution would serve public interest and how he has formed his independent opinion. As we perceive, the learned Public Prosecutor has been totally guided by the order of the Government and really not applied his mind to the facts of the case. The learned trial Judge as well as the High Court has observed that it is a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. They have taken note of the fact that the State Government had already granted sanction. It is also noticeable that the Anti-Corruption Bureau has found there was no justification of withdrawal of the prosecution.
5 (2014) 10 SCC 380 14 17 M. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh6 wherein this Court held at Para No.12 as follows:
12. In the present case, the Public Prosecutor did not file any letter addressed by the Government to him to file an Application along with the G.O., before the Court to enable the Court to give the consent. The Public Prosecutor did not assign any reasons whether in the interest of public the prosecution has to be withdrawn. This is a case where there is an allegation of acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Public Prosecutor did not mention in the Application that there is no likelihood of conviction of the accused from the evidence so far adduced. Neither the Government nor the Public Prosecutor assigned any reasons and there is no indication in the Application whether the Public Prosecutor has applied his mind.
There is an allegation of demanding and accepting bribe against the accused. There is no public interest involved in it. The Government deciding to refer the matter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings by itself is not a ground for withdrawal of the case. The Public Prosecutor did not mention how the withdrawal meets the ends of justice, social, economic and political. He also did not mention whether there is any public policy involved in this case and broader public interest like maintenance of law and order, maintenance of public peace and harmony. He also did not mention that the withdrawal of the case against the accused will not stifle or thwart the process of law or cause manifest injustice. There is no indication that the Public Prosecutor considered the material and in good faith reached the conclusion that the withdrawal from the prosecution will serve the public interest. By withdrawing the case, the prosecution should not reward the wrongdoer and if the withdrawal is made on irrelevant considerations, the credibility of the Rule of Law will be lost. The withdrawal can be allowed only in the interest of justice. There are no sufficient circumstances for the Court that the withdrawal of the prosecution against the accused would advance the cause of justice.
18 In S.R. Laxmirajam vs. State of A.P 7 this Court held at Para Nos.11 and 12 as follows:
11. Even if the Government issued the orders, an obligation is cast upon the prosecutor to consider the facts and circumstances independently and impartially and he being a responsible Officer of the Court is required to file a petition in the Court setting out the reasons as to why the prosecution is sought to be withdrawn. In the instant case, the petition filed by the Public Prosecutor do not contain the requisite particulars to show that an impartial and independent decision was taken by the Public Prosecutor in the matter of seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution and that the said withdrawal was within the larger interest of the public.
12. The Court is empowered with the discretion of either giving the consent or refusing to accord permission to withdraw from the prosecution if it is satisfied that the said withdrawal from the prosecution is not in the public interest or will sub serve any of the constitutional obligations of the State. Solemn obligation is cast on the three Agencies to act to uphold the Rule of Law. Deviation if any, should be only in exceptional cases and for the larger good of the society. If a Public Servant is caught red handed demanding and accepting bribe, and if prosecution against such Officer is 6 2007 (2) ALT (Cri) 325 (A.P.) 7 2015 (3) ALT (Crl.) 339 (A.P) 15 to be dropped on ground such as retirement on superannuation it will amount to making mockery of the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the provisions of Conduct Rules of Civil Servants.
19 In The State of Kerala vs. K. Ajith and Ors. (2 supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated certain guidelines how to deal with a petition filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. In the instant case none of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were complied with by the State while applying for withdrawal of prosecution against the respondents herein because it was not at all stated in the said petitions as to how the said applications were made in good faith and in the interest of public policy and justice. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar Jain case (4 supra) withdrawal of prosecution may be urged by the Public Prosecutor in cases arising out of mass agitations communal riots, regional disputes, industrial conflicts or student unrest etc., Wherever issues involve the emotions and there is a surcharge of violence in the atmosphere it has often been found necessary to withdraw from prosecutions in order to restore peace, to free the atmosphere from the surcharge of violence, to bring about a peaceful settlement of issues and to preserve the calm which may follow the storm. But here in the instant case, such of those circumstances or situations are absent. The dispute is with regard to the criminal conspiracy played by the respondents against a broadcasting company in deleting and adding the names of Directors. 16 The Court has to decide whether the respondents have played any fraud or cheated the de facto complainant because in the cases on hand the learned Magistrate failed to see that final report was filed categorically stating that the accused committed the offence of forgery, producing forged documents before the competent authority and committed the offence of cheating, which allegations are substantiated by the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C as well as the forensic lab report. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor before Court below has not applied his mind independently but simply followed the directions given by the superior police officers as well as the Government and the Court below also has not considered the said aspect before passing the impugned orders, which are mechanical. 20 More so, the charge sheets filed in both the cases would go to show that one Mr.Mahesh Grandhi was not charge sheeted. Surprisingly, in the petitions filed before the learned trial Court the prosecution has arrayed him as one of the petitioners. The learned trial Court lost sight of this aspect while ordering the petitions filed for withdrawal of prosecution. Hence the orders impugned in these two revision cases are nothing but non-application of mind by the learned trial Court since it has not even gone through the cause title wherein who were arrayed as accused / petitioners.
1721 In the light of the aforesaid reasoning and also in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Keala Vs. K.Ajith (2 supra), this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has passed the impugned orders in a most mechanical and casual manner. Hence I am of the considered view that the same need to be set aside.
22 Accordingly, these two criminal revision cases are allowed, the orders dated 08.6.2024 passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.623 of 2024 in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and Criminal M.P.No.622 of 2024 in C.C.No.9288 of 2022 passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, permitting withdrawal of prosecution against the accused are hereby set aside. The matters are restored to the file of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and C.C.No.9288 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law and uninfluenced with any of the observations made herein.
23 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in these criminal revision cases shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL Date: 25--02--2025 L.R copy be marked B/o Kvsn