IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
Chandra Ramesh & Another – Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Chennai & Another – Respondents
CRL. O.P. Nos. 27456 & 27512 of 2019 & CRL. MP. Nos. 14613 & 14693 of 2019
Decided On : 28-04-2023
Criminal Petition - Quashing of Proceedings - Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C - [Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C, Companies Act, 1956] - The court discussed the allegations of misappropriation and wrongful loss caused by the accused in the business of shares and stocks. The court analyzed the appointment of the accused as Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, their resignation, and the subsequent complaints filed by the defacto complainant. The court considered the audit report, the nature of the transactions, and the ongoing investigation before dismissing the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, husband and wife, were appointed as Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer of a company involved in shares and stocks business. Allegations of misappropriation and wrongful loss were made against them, leading to the filing of complaints under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ongoing investigation and examination of witnesses indicated that it was premature to quash the proceedings. The court considered the nature of the transactions, the audit report, and the complaints filed by the defacto complainant before dismissing the petitions.
Issues: Allegations of misappropriation and wrongful loss, appointment and resignation of the accused, ongoing investigation, and nature of transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the ongoing investigation, examination of witnesses, and nature of transactions before dismissing the petitions.
Final Decision: The Criminal original Petitions were dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and quash the entire proceedings pursuant to FIR in Crime No.238 of 2019 on the file of the 1s respondent dated 27.08.2019 on the file of the respondent.)
Common Order:
1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in FIR in Cr.No.238 of 2019 pending on the file of the first respondent police and FIR in Cr.No.239/2019, which has also been given on the very same set of facts with an addition that the accused had entered into agreement with various companies and has caused wrongful loss.
2. The petitioners are the accused 1 and 2 in both cases and they are husband and wife. The first accused is the Managing Director and the second accused is the Chief Operative Officer for their company by name '' C.R. Finance & Securities (P) Limited''. The defacto complainant is the Managing Director of ''IFCI Financial Services Limited (IFIN)’.
3. As per the complaint given by the second respondent''s company, it is carrying on business in shares and stocks; the defacto complainant''s company M/s.IFIN is a subsidiary of IFCI, a deemed government company. The petitioners 1& 2/A1 and A2 are husband and wife and they were carrying out business in retail brokerage in shares and stocks in the name and style of ''C.R. Finance & Securities (P) Limited''. The first accused was the full time director and the second accused was a director of the company.
3.1. Under a scheme of amalgamation ordered by the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 21.10.2008, the company of the accused was amalgamated with ''IFCI Financial Services Limited (IFIN). The company of the accused was amalgamated with an impression that the accused are well versed in business in share market. Subsequent to the amalgamation, the first accused was appointed as the Managing Director of ''IFCI Financial Services Limited (IFIN) with effect from 01.09.2008 and his annual remuneration is Rs.1,22,54,167 and the second accused was appointed as the Chief Operating Officer of the complainant''s company on 01.10.2009 and the total annual remuneration of Rs.60,00,000/- along with other benefits. Both the accused were in-charge of the day to day affairs of the defacto complainant’s company. Initially the first and second accused were appointed for a period of three years and later they were re-appointed for a further period of three years with effect from 01.09.2011. At that time the second accused was given with hike in remuneration.
3.2. Right from taking over the business and administration of the complainant''s company by the first and second accused, there was no transparency in their business dealings and everything was kept under secret and the employees were carrying out their instructions blindly. But the accused acted detrimental to the interest of the complainant''s company. The first and second accused resigned with some malafide intention and they stopped coming to office even when they were not relieved. Since the conduct of the accused created doubts, the defacto complainant scrutinised the accounts. When the accounts were scrutinised it came to be known that the first and second accused dishonestly misappropriated a huge sum and enriched themselves by fabricating documents. The malpractice was done in respect of trading the accounts of the following clients (a) Shri Sanjay Kawde, (b) Shri. Pitambar and (c) Shri Roshan Kumar.
3.3. The above clients were introduced by one T.Sheetal Pyari who was a SEBI registered sub-broker. The accused persons under the above three trading accounts were provided exposures against the stocks of unapproved and weak companies like SVC Resources and GCV Services. The accused persons who had experience in their trade ought to have got better exposure about security. The accused allowed the above three accounts to be operated by one Shri Sanjay Kawde. One B.Nat
AI
The court emphasized the importance of ongoing investigation and examination of witnesses in determining the outcome of the case.
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
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.
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 affirmed that allegations of misappropriation and cheating warranted further investigation, emphasizing the High Court's limited role in assessing cognizable offences.
Point of Law : Section 13 of the Companies Act, 2013, which refers . Alteration of memorandum.— (1) Save as provided in section 61, a company may, by a special resolution and after complying with the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 195 of Cr.P.C, the bar on filing a private complaint for the offence under Section 211 I.P.C, and the assessment of harm....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the abnormal speed at which the trial court took cognizance of the complaint and the lack of evidence to substantiate the allegations led to t....
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the distinction between civil and criminal liability in cases involving business disputes and misuse of information.
Once a transaction is made with the company, the company being a legal entity, unless and until the company is made as co-accused, the complaint is not maintainable. On this ground alone, the complai....
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.