Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 489 (AP)

M. K. Azad v. State Of A. P.

2002-04-02

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2002
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 55 of 2002 of Panjagutta Police Station. ( 2 ) ON 17-1-2002, 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station alleging that he is the Managing Director of R. D. F. Power Project Limited (for short the Company) having its registered office at 3 18, Amrutha Ville Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, and that petitioners 1 to 3 who have been making false claim as Directors of the company have been pressurizing him to hand over the Management of the company to them had on 3-1-2002 at a bout 4 P. M. , came to the company premises with the fourth petitioner who is claiming himself to be the representative of a Malaysian based company, and the fifth petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, and threatened him with dire consequences if he were not to hand over the charge of the company along with the records to them (i. e. , petitioners 1 to 3) immediately, and apprehending threat to his life and the property of the company, when he was rushing to the Police Station to lodge a complaint against the petitioners, he had chest pain on the way and rushed to a hospital where he was admitted as inpatient and in the meanwhile petitioners sent out the members of the staff of the company and locked the premises of the company with their lock and so he got filed a suit and obtained orders of status quo but in the meanwhile the First City Co-operative Urban Bank Limited attached the registered office of the company on 4-1-2002 and sealed the premises for the amount due to it from him in his individual capacity and subsequent to his discharge from the hospital he could persuade the Bank officials to open the seals and went into the premises of the company office at about 7. 30 P. M. , on 16-2-2002 and found the door leading to his room open, and upon entering his room found all his records, books, files and documents belonging to the company with personal files missing and on verification found that his brief case was opened and cash of Rs. 3,500. 30 P. M. , on 16-2-2002 and found the door leading to his room open, and upon entering his room found all his records, books, files and documents belonging to the company with personal files missing and on verification found that his brief case was opened and cash of Rs. 3,500. 00, his personal cheque book and credit card missing, and that he is under an impression that petitioners 1 to 3 along with petitioners 4 and 5 must have entered the premises of the company during the night of 3-1-2002 and broke open the lock of the room and removed all the books, records and files and his personal belongings with a view to fabricate evidence to further their plan to take over the control of the company by illegal means. The S. H. O. Panjagutta P. S. registered that complaint as crime No. 52 of 2001 under Sections 506, 448 and 380 I. P. C. , and took up investigation. Petitioners seek that complaint being quashed. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the averments in the complaint do not disclose any offence much less offences under Sections 506, 448 and 380 I. P. C. and that in fact the Board of Directors of the company had on 16-11-2001 appointed petitioners 1 to 3 as additional Directors of the company had authorised the 2nd respondent to file Form No. 32 before the Registrar of Companies and that 2nd respondent had filed Form No. 32 furnishing information to the Registrar of Companies about the appointment of petitioners 1 to 3 as Directors of the company and so the contention of the 2nd respondent that petitioners 1 to 3 are strangers and are claiming to be the Directors of the company is not and cannot be true. He contended that since the Board of Directors of the company at a meeting held on 29-12-2001 had resolved to terminate the services of the 2nd respondent as Managing Director and appointed the first petitioner as the acting Managing Director till the Board takes a decision with regard to the appointment of a new Managing Director, the contention of that 2nd respondent is the Managing Director of the company is not cannot be true. He also contended that the Board of Directors had on 3-1-2002 resolved to shift the registered office of the company to a premises at Kundanbagh from 8-1-2002. It is his contention that 2nd respondent, with a mala fide intention, had given a false report to the police against the petitioners inventing a story of hospitalization placing strong reliance on Mahavir Prashad Gupta VS. State Of Nct Of Delhi1, Roy V. D. VS. State of Kegala2, G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Ors. 3, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Anr. , G. Murali Krishna v. Smt. G. Madhavi5, Nandipati Veeriah v. Shaik Darga6, state of haryana vs. Ch. bhajan lal7 and and contended that the F. I. R. registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor relying on Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) and Anr. NOTHER9 state of bihar and another vs. md. khalique and another10 , Shantilal vs. Vimalchand11, Lalmuni Devi vs. State Of Bihar12 and M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. 13 contended that since the averments in the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent prima facie disclose the offences under Sections 506, 448 and 380 I. P. C. , the complaint cannot be quashed. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for 2nd respondent relying on G. Kandaram vs. Sunder Chikha Amin14 contended that since the averments in the F. I. R. prima facie disclose the offence, the investigation by police cannot be stalled and the complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold. ( 6 ) THE principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the various decisions cited with regard to the quashing of complaints are well settled. It clearly held that the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure ends of justice and such power should be exercised in rarest of rare cases with circumspection and when the specific allegation in the F. I. R. disclose commission of a cognizable offence by the accused the High Court should not interfere with investigation against the accused. In fact even in MAHAVIR PRASAD GUPTA (1 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry as to genuineness of the allegations made in the complaint or whether those allegations were likely to be established on evidence or not. BHAJAN LAL case (7 supra) was referred to and followed in that case. SUNIL KUMAR case (8 supra) relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners was also referred to in that case in para 9 of the Judgment and held that since the F. I. R. in that case (Sunil Kumar case (8 supra) indicated that the complainant had instituted criminal proceedings with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance and pre-emptying filing of criminal complaint against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, complaint can be quashed and refused to interfere with the order of the High Court quashing the F. I. R. In ROY V. D. case (2 supra) criminal proceedings under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were quashed because arrest and search were made by an officer not empowered or authorised by the said Act because Violation of the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the said Act, being per se illegal and would vitiate the trial. In SAGAR SURI case (3 supra) proceedings against the appellants therein were quashed because they were roped in into criminal proceedings falsely describing them as Directors of a Company, and the investigation revealed that they were not the directors of the company. It was held therein that criminal proceedings are not a short cut for other remedies available. The facts of that case show that the proceedings under Section 482 Cr. P. C. were instituted to quash the case pending in Court after investigation but not to quash the F. I. R. So the said decision is not of help in deciding this case. In M. KRISHNA case (4 supra) it is held that merely because civil suit is pending in respect of the same transaction, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. In G. MURALI KRISHNA case (5 supra) it is held that High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can quash the F. I. R. or investigation in appropriate cases. In G. MURALI KRISHNA case (5 supra) it is held that High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can quash the F. I. R. or investigation in appropriate cases. In N. VEERIAH case (6 supra) it is held that if the allegations in the complaint are civil in nature not warranting prosecution under Section 420 I. P. C. , criminal proceedings can be quashed. ( 7 ) RECENTLY the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa after referring to the various earlier decisions including BHAJAN LAL case (7 supra) held at page 97 that when an information is lodged at the Police Station and an offence is registered, the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance and that it is the material collected during the investigation and the evidence led in Court which decides the fate of the accused person and that allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be basis for quashing the proceedings. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the above said decision, the question whether the 2nd respondent acted with mala fides in giving the police report cannot be gone into in this petition. As held in MD. KHALIQUE case (10 supra) also if there are specific allegations in the F. I. R. against the accused persons disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, High Court would be committing an error if it interferes with the investigation against the accused by quashing the F. I. R. The averments in the F. I. R. given by the 2nd respondent disclose commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners. Therefore police is bound to register the F. I. R. as per Section 154 Cr. P. C. and take up investigation. If investigation reveals commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners, the police would lay a charge sheet, if not they would file a report accordingly before the Magistrate. In view of the allegations in the complaint of 2nd respondent, investigation cannot be stopped at the threshold. In the circumstances stated, order similar to the one passed in SANTILAL case (11 supra) can be passed in this case. In view of the allegations in the complaint of 2nd respondent, investigation cannot be stopped at the threshold. In the circumstances stated, order similar to the one passed in SANTILAL case (11 supra) can be passed in this case. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, I order as follows: Investigating agency can proceed with the investigation of the case and reach a final conclusion on its own either way. If the petitioners are to be arrested in the meanwhile, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 10,000. 00 (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each in a like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Panjagutta Police Station. If the investigating agency reaches the conclusion that a final report under Section 173 of Cr. P. C. has to be laid against the petitioners, the petitioners are permitted to raise all the contentions for discharge at appropriate stage. The petitioners as well as the 2nd respondent should render all assistance to the investigating agency to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. ( 9 ) PETITION is disposed of accordingly.