IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Duppala Venkata Ramana, J.
Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu @ M.V.S.Ramu, S/o.Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by S.H.O. and ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 12835 & 8884 of 2015
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 417, 420, 471, 34 – Offence of cheating - Fraudulently, misrepresented and obtained loan - Intention to cheat Company - Criminal Petition is filed by Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash proceedings - Held, Complaint prima facie makes allegations of criminal liability and furthermore, in present case, said fact is fortified by filing of charge sheet by investigating officer and in such an event, criminal complaints cannot be quashed - Even though disputes are found to be civil in nature as alleged, where allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents are involved, using forged document as genuine i.e., Board Resolution and diverting funds of Rs.10.00 crores to firms of A.1 to A.4 as stated above, initiation of criminal proceedings cannot be quashed - Court has come to a conclusion that allegations made in charge sheet in C.C. are sufficient enough for trial to be taken up and thereby, criminal proceedings are not advisable to be quashed - Court does not find any abuse of process of Court in initiating criminal proceedings against petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in above criminal petitions – Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Criminal Petition No.12835 of 2015 is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) praying to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.302 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 and 471 read with 34 IPC.
Criminal Petition No.8884 of 2015 is filed by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 and 4, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) praying to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.302 of 2015 pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, for the offences under Sections 406, 409, 417, 420 and 471 read with 34 IPC.
2. Since both the criminal petitions are arising out of C.C.No.302 of 2015 and raising common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court in C.C.No.302 of 2015.
4. The marshalling of facts upon perusal of the complaint and other material available at this stage is that A.1 – Maddipoti Venkata Satya Ramu and A.2 – Sujatha are husband and wife respectively. A.3 – Maddipoti Satyanarayana Chowdary and A.4 – Maddipoti Vara Lakshmi are husband and wife respectively and parents of A.1 and A.1, A.2 and A.4 are the Directors of Maddipoti Consultants Private Limited. A.1 is also the Director of PGM Infrastructures Private Limited.
(ii) The complainant, Chinnam Naga Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy, is the Managing Director of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited, which is registered under the Companies Act. On 31.08.2008, M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited appointed M/s.JBRK & Co., Limited as Auditors to audit the accounts of the Company for the financial year 2007-2008. A.1 (ACA Membership No.20765) and one Praveen (ACA Membership No.204968), who are the Chartered Accountants and the partners of M/s.JBRK & Co., Limited, attended the audit of the said Company and subsequently, A.1 took active role in the financial activities of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited and gained confidence of the Company. Thus, M/s. Soubhagya Projects Private Limited issued 1,50,000 equity shares each of Rs.10/- to A.2, who is the wife of A.1 and 1,39,400 shares to L.W.5 – Hanumanthavarjula Ratna Prasad. Later, they have joined as Additional Directors of M/s.Soubhagya Projects Private Limited. Subsequently, they became the Directors of the Company from 28.08.2011.
(iii) The de facto Complainant and his brother reposed trust and confidence in A.1 as he happened to be the Auditor and A.1 gained access to various financial transactions of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Private Limited. Taking advantage of his position as a Director of the Company, A.1 took over the steering of the financial matters of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Private Limited and fraudulently, misrepresented to TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai as if he is the Managing Director of the Company and obtained loan and also withdrew the amounts and diverted them wrongfully to his accounts.
(iv) On 12.11.2011, A.1 with a fraudulent intention to cheat the Company, approached TATA Capital Limited, Mumbai, for obtaining term loan of Rs.10.00 crores and put his signature as Managing Director of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Private Limited, though he was not a Managing Director of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Private Limited, by showing himself as one of the guarantors and A.4 as the 2nd guarantor. As per Bylaws of M/s. Soubhagya Projects Private Limited, at least two Directors have to sign on any funding documents, but TATA Capital Limited accepted the representation sent by A.1, processed the loan formalities by accepting documents submitted by A.1 and sanctioned the loan of Rs.10.00 crores on 12.01.2012.
(v) A.1 and A.2, who are husband and wife, created a f
Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The court maintained that an FIR must not be quashed at an initial stage unless no prima facie case is established, even if the allegations suggest civil nature.
The court established that a civil dispute can coexist with criminal allegations, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not negate the possibility of criminal liability if the complaint discl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of the prosecution was an abuse of process of law, as the allegations did not establish an offense and had been rejected in pre....
A legitimate prosecution cannot be stifled under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the complainant had locus standi to set the law in motion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.