Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The facts have been taken from Criminal Misc. No.M-21866 of 2013, Jagdeep Singh v. Shivaji Rao Zombade. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner Jagdeep Singh is the ex-Director and shareholder of M/s Poshak Agrivet Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Company') and the respondent is also the Director and shareholder of the Company. Due to various mal-functioning of the respondent and siphoning out of huge funds from the Company by the respondent, the petitioner disassociated himself from the said Company and resigned from the directorship of the Company on 15.12.2009. However, the respondent was liable to restore back various properties of the petitioner and also to pay huge amounts to the petitioner. It is also stated in the petition that for the settlement of their accounts and business relationship, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, namely, Satish Kumar Goel, Advocate and the Award was passed by the Arbitrator on 10.5.2010, which clearly specify the part to be performed by each party to the arbitral proceedings. As per the Award, petitioner Jagdeep Singh was the owner of the land/premises from where the business of the Company was run and the same had been given on rent/lease to the Company and the same had been agreed to be vacated latest by 31.3.2012 and thereafter, with a further grace period of three months at an enhanced rent, besides, the other properties to be Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. transferred in the name of the petitioner along with payment of his entire dues payable by the Company in which the respondent is a Director. The only obligation of the petitioner was to transfer the shares at their face value in his name or in the name of his group persons in favour of the respondent and all the liabilities of the Company were of the respondent. It is also stated that the petitioner was still ready to perform his remaining part.

Whereas the counsel for the respondent contested the quashing petition and argued that there are allegations of theft in the complaint (Annexure-P.1) in para 5.

I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

From the record, I find that the complaint (Annexure-P.1) has been filed by respondent-Shivaji Rao Zombade, Managing Director, M/s Poshak Agrivet Private Limited against Jagdeep Singh and Narender Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. Kumar petitioners along with other persons for the offences under Sections 380, 411, 120-B and 506 IPC. Para 5 of this complaint states that accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Jagdeep Singh and his wife Sumita Singh were watching the proceedings of the High Court from outside and when they came to know about the status quo order of the High Court, they again hatched a criminal conspiracy not only with said `Gunda' elements, but also with local Police using political pressure and reached at the factory site on 10.10.2010 and changed the name board of the Company, which is confirmed by the Bank letter dated 7.10.2010 and also started lifting all the major stock along with office records of the Company by loading in trucks having registration Nos.HR-45-0036, HR-45-7368 and HR-38-G- 6616 noticed by the complainant and other trucks whose number would be disclosed by accused No.1 to 7. It is stated that the raw material/semi finished/finished good lying in the godowns was worth approximately `2 Crores. The stock statement dated 25.9.2010 was handed over to the banker of the Company i.e. Canara Bank, Karnal, to whom the said stock was hypothecated. The officials of the Canara Bank, (bank of the Company) visited the factory site for stock verification and found major stock missing, which is confirmed by their letters dated 10.11.2010 and 18.10.2010. In para 7 of the complaint it is also stated that the complainant received the information of on going theft through his reliable sources and the incident was duly brought to the notice of concerned Police by the son of the complainant, namely, Ujwal Zombade by moving a written complaint along with copy of the order of the High Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. Court that the accused persons were taking law into their hands and requested to take legal action against the accused persons, but no action was taken due to the political influence of accused No.2 and 3. In this para, it is also stated that the driver of Smt. Sumita Singh, M.L.A., namely, Narender, accused No.4, was very much present at the premises and playing active role in the incident of theft. All the accused persons not only violated the order of the High Court, but also forcibly and dishonestly took away all stocks and the complainant was threatened to be killed and face dire consequences, if moved any complaint, when the accused persons were contacted in this regard. From the perusal of the complaint itself, in no way, it can be held that there are no allegations regarding theft in the complaint. Similarly, it also cannot be held that there is no mens rea. In the complaint, the complainant is alleging that the articles along with records etc. had been taken away in the trucks. Huge stock amounting to `2 Crores etc. had been taken away specially when the proceedings are pending before the High Court. So, at this stage, it cannot be held that there is no mens rea. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that reduction of stock is on the ground that some of the articles had been sold as per the orders of the High Court, is to be seen/determined after evidence to be produced before the Court. It is an admitted fact that the Arbitrator was appointed and there was dispute between the parties regarding settlement of accounts and distribution of properties etc. The mere fact that petitioner Jagdeep Singh has resigned on 15.12.2009 before the occurrence no where shows that he cannot Cr. Misc. Nos.M-21866 of 2013 etc. commit the theft or cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 380 IPC on this ground. Even in the inquiry report (Annexure-P.12), it is written that major stock is missing from the premises. The complainant has provided some photographs showing alleged movement of stock by accused No.1 and 4 Rajinder Gupta and Narender Kumar. Only on the ground of the finding of the Inquiry Officer, at this stage, it cannot be held that no offence is made out against the petitioners.