Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
P.K. LOHRA, J.
Tribhuvan Raj Bhandari son of Late Shri S.R. Bhandari - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRIMINAL MISC. (PET.) (CRLMP) NO.613/2014
Decided On : 11-11-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. TRIBHUVAN RAJ BHANDARI, Petitioner present in person.
For the Respondent-State: Mr. S.K. VYAS, AAG with Mr. V.S. RAJPUROHIT, PP.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Directions against investigating agency to conduct fair and impartial investigation into FIR – Transfer of investigation to CBI – Whether can be transferred – Complaint against twenty-nine persons without disclosing identity of anyone of them - Held, jurisdiction of a Court to make inquiry or trial of a case requires threadbare examination as per Section 179 and Section 181 Cr.P.C. Sub-sec.(4) of Section 181 Cr.P.C. envisages with clarity and precision that any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused persons. The glaring facts of the case are an eye opener and therefore it is rather difficult to permit investigating agency to close the case on the ground of jurisdiction. A vital fact about the status of the petitioner as shareholder receiving dividend or other communications/letters/messages at Jodhpur, within the jurisdiction of learned trial Court, are some of the important – Trial Court is required to examine the negative final report solely based on jurisdiction in accordance with Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. after considering materials collected by the investigating agency and reasons assigned for refraining to investigate the matter on the ground of jurisdiction – Petitioner at liberty to lay appropriate application before learned trial Court for summoning of any document or for further investigation in the matter strictly in adherence of law
1. Complainant-petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking necessary directions against investigating agency to conduct fair and impartial investigation into FIR No.580/2013, registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur. Alternatively, it is prayed that investigation may be transferred to CBI.
2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that, on 09.10.2013, petitioner-complainant filed a criminal complaint before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) against twenty-nine persons without disclosing identity of anyone of them. In the complaint, Dr. A.C. Muthiya, Chairman of M/s. First Leasing Company of India Ltd. (for short, ‘Company’), was arrayed as accused No.1 besides other accused persons. The apposite facts averred in the complaint are as follows:
It is averred in the complaint that the Company is a public limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, enjoying status of Non-Banking Financial Institution (NBFI) under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. A Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the Company, dilating the basic aims and objects of the Company by its promoters, essentially highlighting its leasing and hire purchase business, which includes machinery, equipments, motor-vehicles, houses, cinema theaters, livestock, ships, airplanes etc. so also their resale and other ancillary business thereto. That apart, the MOA also projected the aims and objects of the Company for production of electric energy, transmission, sale, supply, distribution and other ancillary projects. A fact is also incorporated in the MOA that shares of the Company are enlisted with Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and National Stock Exchange (NSE) and any investor can purchase and sale shares of Company in open market. Being enlisted company with BSE and NSE, it has sufficiently demonstrated general reputation of the Company in public at large. The complainant has also furnished details about eleven Directors including the Chairman in the complaint and also made an attempt to refer Section 217 of the Companies Act for showing their obligations as Directors of the Company. That apart, the individuals named in the complaint with their respective status in the Company and their legal obligations are also incorporated in the complaint. While adverting to culpability of the accused-persons, it is specifically averred in the complaint that those in helm of affairs of the Company and its auditors projected its lucrative financial status vis-à-vis other companies by citing its gross total NPA level as 2% at above 7% (Banks and NBFCs) and vis-à-vis Company’s gross NPA at 0.5%. With this booming financial status, it is also averred in the complaint that Company has availed credit facility from 14 banks to the tune of Rs.1200 crores. The complaint further unfolds that those in helm of affairs of the Company, by projecting embellished version of its financial status, accumulated a huge amount to the tune of Rs.1500 crores from different sources; viz., public and right issue of shares, loan instruments (debentures) etc. In order to attract and induce the investors, the persons in helm of affairs of the Company, also indicated the value of the shares over and above its intrinsic value periodically. The requisite figures from year 1974 to 2010 are also mentioned in the complaint in ascending orders. The complainant has specifically pleaded that all the figures showing share value of the Company in ascending order were manipulated and maneuvered by the Directors of the Company and, those who are in helm of affairs of the Company while camouflaging the actual value of share which was far below. As per version of the complainant, entire record including Balance-sheets, Profit & Loss Accounts, reports of Board of Directors, flow of funds, declaration of dividends, ratings and track record were tampered with and manipulated for showing pseudo progress and enhanc
