SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 972

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
B. Siva Kumar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.O.P.No.25859 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
Decided On : 24-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. C. Arunkumar.
For the Respondents:Mr. L. Baskaran, Government Advocate, Ms. J. Sreelekha, Legal Aid Counsel.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Petitioners accused are facing trial for offence filed this quash petition petitioners along with two other accused are facing prosecution - Held, Petitioners other two accused got relieved from directorship of company de-facto complainant incumbent directors signed a Memorandum of Understanding with liabilities and receivables which cannot be ignored - Court finds no reason or justification to continue proceedings against petitioners continuation of prosecution would only amount to abuse of process of Law not only against petitioners two accused who are similarly placed - Criminal Original Petition is allowed.

ORDER :

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, prayed to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.190/2014 for offences under Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 I.P.C. on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore as against the petitioners.

The petitioners/Accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.190 of 2014, who are facing trial for offence under Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 I.P.C. have filed this quash petition. The petitioners along with two other accused are facing prosecution in C.C.No.190 of 2014.

2. The gist of the case is that the de-facto complainant/second respondent, who is the Chairman of M/s.Telecare Infrastructures Limited, lodged a complaint with the first respondent, who registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2012 for offence under Sections 120(B), 408 and 420 I.P.C. on 02.02.2012. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the trial Court on 25.02.2014 and the same was taken on file on 15.04.2014. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the 4 erstwhile Directors of M/s.Telecare Infrastructures Limited, who are the accused in this case.

2.1. The de-facto complainant as Chairman of the board of Directors, looked after the policies and strategies of the company, while the day to day management was maintained by the other erstwhile Directors led by the respective Managing Directors, who assumed office from time to time, viz. From 20.01.2009 to 13.07.2010, K.G.Sivakumar/A3 was the Managing Director, S.Ragunathan/A2 looked after the finance port-folio and he was the company authorised sole cheque signing authority, S.Rangarajan/A4 looked after the sales and marketing and B.Sivakumar/A1 was looking after the projects and execution. The first petitioner/A1 was appointed as Managing Director on 14.07.2010 and he managed the company and its day to day affairs, while all other Directors/accused assisted him, in the management of the company.

2.2. When the first petitioner/A1 took over as Managing Director, he shifted the registered office from 33, Sundaram Brother's layout, Trichy Road to Kiruba Complex, MTP Road, Coimbatore. At that time all the company assets worth about Rs.20 lakhs and the stocks worth about Rs.4 lakhs physically moved by the first petitioner from the registered office at Trichy Road. On 28.05.2011 and 04.06.2011, the Annual General Body Meeting of the company was held and elected the new Directors, namely, K. Radhakrishnan, A. Rajagopal and R. Balasundaram. After the new management took over charge, it was found that

    (1) the first petitioner/A1 robbed the company's office assets and material stocks to the tune of Rs.24 lakhs.

(2) the second petitioner/A2 had withdrawn unauthorisedly a sum of Rs.25 lakhs without informing others, since he is the sole cheque signing authority.

(3) the former directors have failed to hand over the company related documents including the cheque books, account documents and sale invoices etc. to the new management. They also failed to hand over the receivables to the tune of Rs.76 lakhs from various customers which could not be verified.

(4) The former Directors have misappropriated and diverted the funds of the company by not paying the vendor dues to the tune of Rs.46 lakhs, even though the company made a profit for that period ending 31.03.2010. The vendors claim not paid.

(5) the petitioners and other former Directors/accused have failed to pay statutory dues by submitting the false auditor's statements to the company, bank, commercial taxes department and income tax department.

2.3. Despite several requests, the accused 1 to 4 failed to comply with the requests and thereafter the complaint lodged. After receipt of the complaint, F.I.R. registered. On completion of investigation, recording the statement of L.W.1 to L.W.10 and listing L.W.1 to L.W.12 and documents, charge sheet filed in this case. The trial Court on perusal of the materials and documents found prima-facie case made out and hence took

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
      whatsapp-icon Back to top