IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Pramod Maheshwari & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (Cr.) No. 361 of 2019
Decided On : 20-09-2023
Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code - 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 34 - Companies Act, 2013 - Section 241, 242
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings and an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging false documents for operating a company's bank account.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners warranted investigation and that the matter was premature for quashing. The court also noted the dismissal of the case before the National Company Law Tribunal.
Issues: Allegations of false documents for operating the bank account, applicability of Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the premature nature of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations warranted investigation and that the matter was premature for quashing. The dismissal of the case before the National Company Law Tribunal was also noted.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and any interim order granted was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Badal Vishal, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Deepankar, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.93/2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.1806/2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No.2971/2018 registered under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The prayer is also made for declaring passing of an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the learned court is bad in law.
3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the petitioners and other accused persons and respondent no.2 are known to each other and are engaged in business. In the year 2008, respondent no.2 along with the petitioners and three other accused persons had established a company, wherein, accused no.1 looked after the day to day work on accused no.4. One rice mill was setup at Futkal Toli, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi under the said company in the name and style of Prateek Agro Experts Pvt. Ltd. The said company engaged Bank of India, Shyamali Branch as its banker and with the joint decision of the Directors it was agreed that the said account's operation would be carried by the signature of accused no.1 and the said bank also provided loan to the company. After some time of starting of the operation of the Rice mill, the accused persons with their connivance started cheating. Accused no.4 and accused no.1 are cousin and upon his instruction, accused no.1 started selling the goods on under determined price, which caused difficulty to the company and the liability towards the bank loan increased. Upon opposing the same accused persons and the petitioner used to quarrel. For such reason on 12.02.2018, a meeting was held between the petitioners, other accused persons and the respondent no.2 in presence of firm's Chartered Accountant, wherein, it was concluded that the accused no.1 will buy the said land and plant and further would pay Rs. 4 Crore to respondent no.2 as his share till 31.03.2018. It was further alleged that if the amount is not paid till 31.03.2018, penalty of Rs.50 Lakhs shall be paid. Pursuant to which one understanding (minute) was entered into wherein respondent no.2, petitioners, other accused persons and Chartered Accountant had put their signature voluntarily and the original copy of the said understanding was kept with accused no.4 and respondent no.2 was supplied with the photo copy of the same. It was also alleged that the petitioners and other accused persons created a forged resolution in the name of company that accused nos. 2 and 5 would operate the bank account and the same was submitted with the bank, which was informed to respondent no.2 through bank. It was further alleged that the petitioners and accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 in connivance with each other wants to remove the respondent no.2 fraudulently and appoint accused nos. 5 and 6 as Directors. On 10.04.2018 at 07:00 A.M., information was received that some persons are uninstalling the machines of the plant on the instruction of the petitioners and other accused persons, pursuant whereto respondent no.2 along with witness nos. 1, 2 and 3 went to the factory and restricted the uninstallation upon which the persons uninstalling the machine ran away. Respondent no.2 got confirm that the petitioners and other accused persons in connivance with each other have conspired and created the company to defraud respondent no.2 by selling the stocks and embezzle and also submitted the forged resolution of the company.
4. Mr. Pasari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Directors of M/s. Prateek Agro Export Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi and petitioner no.1 is amongst the founder Director of the company and the petitioner no.2 joined as Director of the said company w.e.f. 05.05.2008. He submi
HDFC Securities Limited & Others vs. State of Maharashtra & Another
Ramdev Food Products Limited Vs. State of Gujarat
Babu Venkatesh and others v. State of Karnataka and another
State of Orissa and another v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo
Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar
Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
The court emphasized the need for investigation into the allegations and the premature nature of the petition for quashing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the Magistrate to apply judicial mind before directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the wide powers of the Magistrat....
The court emphasized that successive FIRs regarding the same incident are impermissible and quashed the FIR based on concealment of previous complaints and forum shopping, affirming the requirement o....
A Magistrate cannot register a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC based on the same facts after a previous complaint has been quashed, as it exceeds jurisdiction.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is dishonest intention from the outset; judicial mind must be applied before directing police investigation under Section....
As per Section 154 of Cr.P.C. object of registration of FIR is that every information relating to cognizance of offence whether or given orally or otherwise officer incharge of police station has to ....
The complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, and vicarious liability cannot be imposed without proper allegations and evidence.
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.