In criminal proceedings, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; adverse inference cannot sustain charges absent secure evidence.

ORDER :

HARINATH.N, J.

1. The criminal petitions are filed seeking quash of CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567 of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. The criminal petitions are filed primarily on the ground that the police on the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent after a lapse of ten years from the date of the alleged offences have registered cases and filed charge sheets.

2. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 420 , 465, 468, 175 of IPC. It is submitted that when the allegations of forgery are made, the police ought to have failed to secured the alleged forged documents during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the police have not obtained any expert opinion to lay a charge of forgery against the petitioners. However, the police in the charge sheet have stated that the original share certificates, share transfer deeds and share transfer registers are in possession and custody of the accused and that, they could not be seized as the petitioners have not submitted them to the police and have concealed them. An adverse inference was drawn that the petitioners have committed forgery of documents and the charge sheet is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that a Memorandum Of Understanding dated 26.12.2005 was entered between SK Big Star Foods Limited, represented by Mr.M.N.Reddy, Managing Director and T.A.N.Gupta (2^nd petitioner in CRLP.No.911 of 2023). The first party therein agreed to transfer 1,50,000 equity shares to the second party or his nominees on no value basis. The 2^nd petitioner expressed his intention to take over the company SK Big Star Foods Limited and settle the OTS Dues to Bank of India.

4. It is submitted that the 2^nd petitioner was appointed as a Director of SK Big Star Foods Limited on 29.03.2006 and the relevant Form 32 was also filed before the Registrar of Companies. The annual return of the year 2013 would indicate that the shares were transferred in favour of the 2^nd petitioner and others. It is also submitted that one K.Trinadha Reddy claiming himself as the Executive Director of SK Big Star Foods Limited, had addressed a letter to the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad on 13.09.2013 alleging that the 2^nd petitioner and the 5^th petitioner have effected changes in the Constitution of Board of the Company and sought rectification.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that some of the share holders filed CP.12 of 2015 and CP.18 of 2016 seeking to rectify the Register of Members of the Company to reflect the names of petitioners as the owners of the equity shares which according to them, they were holding. Both the petitioners were dismissed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that when the shares were transferred in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding executed by M.N.Reddy on behalf of SK Big Star Foods Limited during his lifetime. M.N Reddy passed away on 03.07.2012. The 2^nd respondent could not have filed a complaint after lapse of more than ten years by relying on the paper advertisement dated 02.01.2014 relating to transfer of 99.6% of shares to the 1^st petitioner. It is claimed that the shareholders of SK Big Star Foods Limited have informed the 2^nd respondent that they had never transferred any shares to anyone. The 2^nd respondent has filed a complaint on 24.04.2016 alleging offences under Sections 420 , 468 and 471 of