Dismissed

Mayank Patodia and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2018CRLMP/1420/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1420/2018 dismissed the petition seeking quashing of an FIR convened two years prior under IPC Sections 406, 420, and 120-B, holding that prior disposal and prima facie findings preclude interference despite the acquisition of the petitioners' firm.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR dismissed; stay petition also dismissed.

Mayank Patodia and Ors. Vs State and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1420 / 2018

¶3

Mayank Patodia S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Patodia, Aged About 36 Years

¶4

Pawan Kumar Patodia S/o Shri Late Kishan Patodia, Aged About 55 Years

¶5

Prateek Patodia S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Patodia, Aged About 31 Years, All Are Directors of Ashoka Multiyarn Mills Limited, Office Address- 6th Floor, NIKO House, Herry Street, Near Million Park, Kolkata.

¶6

----Petitioners Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Chetan Prakash S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Agarawal, Resident of Azad Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar

¶11

For Respondent No.1 : Mr. M.S. Panwar, P.P.

¶12

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Pritam Solanki

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶14

Order

¶15

04/05/2018

¶16

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.97/2017 of Police Station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC.

¶17

It appears that earlier also, the petitioners preferred S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1081/2017 seeking the similar prayer, however, the said criminal misc. petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2017 with a direction to the

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMP-1420/2018]

¶20

petitioners to submit their representation before the Investigating Officer within a period of 15 days. It is further directed by this Court that the Investigating Authority shall consider the representation of the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and if the Investigating Authority needs to arrest the petitioners, then the petitioners shall be given 15 days notice before making

¶21

such arrest.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, wherein it is mentioned that pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer despite issuance of summons and informing them on their mobile phones. It is also mentioned in the factual report that the petitioners had submitted a representation through speed post, wherein it is mentioned that the company of the petitioners has now been acquired by the Union Bank of India pursuant to the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi dated 15.11.2017, therefore they are not in a position to clear the dues of the respondent. The Investigating Officer has concluded that the petitioners have deliberately not paid the dues amount of the complainant and misappropriated the same.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that with the acquisition of the petitioners’ company by the Union Bank of India pursuant to the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, the criminal proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR cannot be continued.

¶24

It is contended that with the issuance of the moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Act, 2016, the

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-1420/2018]

¶27

impugned FIR is not liable to be investigated or no criminal proceedings pursuant to impugned FIR can be continued against the petitioners.

¶28

In support of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶29

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. M/s. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶30

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on record and particularly taking into consideration the fact that earlier criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to submit their representation and pursuant to that though the petitioners did not appear personally before the Investigating Officer but submitted their representation through speed post and the Investigating Officer after taking into consideration the same has found prima facie case against the petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere in this criminal misc. petition, hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

¶31

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

¶32

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶33

Taruna

Mayank Patodia and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayank Patodia and Ors. v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Singh Vs State

Arvind Kishore Vs Smt Neha Mathur and Anr.

Dropati Vs State and Anr.

Ram Narayan Meel and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Bhup Singh Vs State and Anr.

Mewa Singh Vs State