Karnataka High Court
S R Kapasi S/O R A Kapasi vs State By Attibele Police Station on 2 September, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
Q #1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BANGALORE : = -_' DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH A' CRIMINAL PETITION NQ,»V1276[_'.:»;61ijj BETWEEN: I I I Mr.S.R.Kapasi Son of R.A.Kapasi Aged about 70 years Residing at No.1-C. Queens Courx"-t---- 102, Montieth Road ' __ E Egmore ' . Chennai ~ 600 008. * ._ C~....PE'I'ITIONER ; " '(OI':'-'Q-.SI'i. 1. state by Attibe£f¢~1§chg§é»»Station Attibéie, II3angaIc}re ~*Rii_ra1 District Bangaldrgj V. " S' Registrar Soffiémpanies "I:'.'_Wi.ng,"«2V"d Floor, _ T 'K.ei1ririyas_adan, Koramangala "'.__Bai1g:;1Qre}"560 034. ...RESPONDENTS ' .' §'(By Sri. Satish R.Gi1ji, HCGP for R1 ' Sri. Basavara K.Soodhi, Adv. for R2} CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 I . C'R.SP.-C''PRAYING 'I'I"I.A'I' 'I'I""IIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 'VQUASII THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.123/2007 PENDING ON FILE OF THE JMFC., ANEKAL. INSO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER CONSEQUENTLY THE FIR DATED 8.5.2007 AS .. 'AGAINST THE PETITIONER PENDING INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE ATTIBELE POLICE STATION. -2- THIS PE'l"1TlOi\? COMING 0 §OR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE §'OLLOWING:% ORDER
Criine Petitioner has called in question the proceedings. No.123/2007 registered by Attibele police, onhiforl til-1_¢l' offence punishable under Sections 0408. l'4_1E3', rfw T 424 of the IPC.
4 'E '
2. Complainant is the _Coiriplaiiiespfiiarnataka, Bangalore. It is alleged petitionzer*Company has failed to file its Annua1.Returns-- in terms of the provisions of since 2001. Besides this, in the year: 'money from the public amounting of Prospectus in accordance with the lp'roV'isions_. The pubic had been induced by false ,assurance 'and promises in the prospectus. The l 0' C''i?romptei:s}/directorsV"of the company deceived the public by ind'u.ci1ig"»thcm.._ to invest money in the said company and subseouevntiyl-disappelared after misappropriating the money. is learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as .0 against the issue of three show cause notices by the Registrar of "Companies, petitioner had filed Company Petition Nos.1i9 and 120/ 2002 before the Company Court. The Company Court by order dated 16.2.2005 disposed of the said Company Petition % -3- with a direction to the Regist1_"ai;{§.of Companies to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and additionai repiy if any filed in the light of the observationdinade in the order. He submitted that. there is a Registrar of Companies to consider theyreply. _'--Nith'o:i';t, i§Vaiting..for . 1 the reply. complaint has been fiied and that. petitioner was a Director and he has retiretd and u been filed and as such no prosecntion could" 'haye been initiated against the petitioner.
4. On the other hanchiearned 'appearing for the respondent of VtcojmtpanivesVttstibinitted that, Company had coIIecte'd-ti"-.e thetune of RS250 lakhs on false assurance and that the entire money has been misappro_Vpr'iated. it C E='1'he" A.amoun't""tis collected in the year 1994» and no filed even in 2001 also and it constitute an offeAn.c__e. pt-hese circumstances, after waiting tiii 2007, ~ W _ 'eon1p1a.i'nt_A has been fiied.
6. The entire matter is under investigation before the jurisdictional police. if the petitioner had tiled repiy and the " V Registrar of Company has not considered the said reply in terms of..the order passed by the Company Court, he may produce 7047"
such material before the police;-§r1ci he may also produce such other materials substantiating that he is innocent anci___is not connected with the alleged offence. If such material is before the police, the police is directed to consider' the ' file appropriate report. -
With the above observation, Iietitioiistancis of.
Petitioner may seek. regular--%3ail--,. if».permissible.vil1 law. Sd/__ Jfidqe s=Ap/_