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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 5697

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G.RADHA RANI, J
Mr. Nekkanti Venkata Rao – Appellant
Versus
Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy – Respondent
CRLP/8024/2021



THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI CRIMINAL PETITION No.8025 OF 2021 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.8024 OF 2021

COMMON ORDER:

Both these petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 31 of 2021 on the file of VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad. The petitioners are accused No. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 31 of 2021 and they are none other than father and daughter respectively by relation. Since the subject matter in both the petitions is one and the same, I am inclined to dispose of both the petitions by this Common Order.

2. The case of the petitioners in brief was that, the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8025 of 2021 was the estranged wife of respondent No.1 and daughter of respondent No.2. The respondent No.1, through his General Power of Attorney Holder, lodged a private complaint against her and the respondent No.2 before the VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad, for the offences under Sections 447, 448 and 451 of the Companies Act 2013, and Sections 628 and 629A of the Companies Act 1956 and Sections 405, 415, 420, 425, 464, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

2.1 As per the complaint, the complainant i.e. respondent No.1 and his brother late Mr. Jakka Venkatram Reddy incorporated a Company under the name and style of M/s Peregrine Agro Private Ltd., on 17.01.1997 under the provisions of the Companies Act. At the time of incorporation, the Company had an authorized share capital of Rs.10,00,000/- divided into 1,00,000 shares of Rs.10/- each. The complainant and his brother late Mr. Jakka Venkatram Reddy were promoters/directors and each of them held 99% equity shares of the Company. On 13.03.1997, a huge tract of land was purchased in the name of the Company at Bonthavaripalli revenue village through three registered sale deeds. The complainant and his brother contributed an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- from their family savings towards purchase of the said land, which was reflected in the books of account as Share Capital Money of the Company for the financial year 1996-97. The complainant’s brother late Mr. Jakka Venkatram Reddy was looking after the affairs of the Company. The name of the Company thereafter was changed to Peregrine Aids Remedies Private Ltd., Accused No.1 was having a marital discord with her husband Mr. Srinivas Paruchuri right from the time they were living together in USA, which culminated in several legal proceedings between them in India, and eventually on 14.08.2007, she got divorce from Mr. Srinivas Parchuri.

2.2 In June 2002, accused No.1 came back from USA and stayed as a tenant in a portion of the building constructed in plot No.974, road No.49, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, which was owned by the family of the complainant. The complainant was divorced and living in the same building with his mother and minor daughter from his first marriage. Around 2010, the complainant’s brother Mr. Jakka Venkatram Reddy was diagnosed with colon cancer and started undergoing treatment. Since the brother of the complainant was critically ill, and the complainant was busy, the affairs of the Company were getting neglected. Accused No.1 induced the complainant to induct her as a Director in the Company and promised to look after the Company. Believing her representation, the complainant agreed to induct her as an additional director in the Company. For the said purpose, accused No.1 asked the complainant to sign on various documents including blank sheets of papers on the ground that several documents might need his signature and she did not want complainant to be disturbed frequently. Believing her representation, the complainant and his brother signed on all the documents presented before them by accused No.1 in good faith. On false representation acc

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top