Prosecutors must exercise independent judgment when seeking consent to withdraw charges, failing which may undermine public justice and judicial processes.

ORDER :

E.V. VENUGOPAL, J.

1 Aggrieved by the docket orders dated 08.6.2024 passed in Criminal M.P.Nos.623 of 2024 in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 and Criminal M.P.No.622 of 2024 in C.C.No.9288 of 2022 passed by learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, permitting withdrawal of prosecution against the petitioners, these two revisions have been preferred by the de-facto complainant.

2 The factual matrix was that M/ s. Associated Broadcasting Company (P) Limited (ABCPL) is running various TV channels under the Brand “TV9” and the companies namely M/ s. Chintalapati Holdings Pvt. Ltd and iLabs Venture Capital Fund who had majority companies, offered to sell their entire shareholding of ABCPL and approached the M/ s. Alanda Media (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’). Thereupon, the complainant acquired majority equity shareholding offered by ABCPL as per the share purchase agreement entered on 24.8.2018 and the entire consideration for purchase of equity had been paid on the even date. Subsequently, the majority shares of ABCPL were transferred in favour of the complainant through DMat account on 27.8.2018. Further the ABCPL had noted the transfer of shares in favour of the complainant by passing necessary resolutions. Pursuant to the said transfer of shares, the complainant became the majority stake holders of M/s. ABCPL and their nominee Directors were also appointed on the Board of ABCPL duly obtaining the approval of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), Government of India under the applicable guidelines vide their letter dated 29.3.2019. The entire transactions have taken place in accordance with law and there is no grievance whatsoever to the shareholders who have sold their equity to the complainant in ABCPL, which is operating television channels in several languages under the brand “TV9”. Further, they conducted the Board Meeting on 23.4.2019.

3 It is further stated as a part of criminal conspiracy and with an ill-will to derail the operations of the company and thereby cause wrongful financial loss and damage to the reputation of the company, accused Nos.1 and 2 together created false and fabricated ante dated documents with malice and fraudulent intention wherein A.2 allegedly entered into share purchase agreement on ante date i.e. 20.02.2018 with A.1 Ravi Prakash and paid an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs for acquiring 40,000 equity shares belonging to Ravi Prakash-A.1 in ABCPL. Since the transfer of shares was not effected till date, A.2-Shivaji allegedly issued a notice to A.1-Ravi Prakash on 15.3.2019 and immediately A.1 has also allegedly issued a reply on 17.3.2019. He further refused to conduct board meetings by showing all these frivolous issues. Hence the complainant lodged a complaint which was registered as a case in Cr.No.84 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 467, 469, 471 and 120(B) IPC and under Sections 66 and 72 of the IT Act. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein for the above said offences. The said case was taken on file in C.C.No.9286 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-I AJCJ at Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

4 With identical contents the very same complainant lodged another complaint with the Cyberabad Cyber crime police, which was registered as Cr.No.87 of 2019 on 30.4.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 468, 471 and 120(B) IPC and Sections 66 -C, 66-D of IT Act, 2000. The further allegations in the said complaint were that Ravi Prakash, with an intention to prevent the uploading the names of new additional directors by filing Form No.DIR – 12 to the ROC and to stop the four new Directors in functioning in such a way to protect the best interest of the company, has committed the crime of forgery of the signature of the company Secretary – Mr. Devender Agar