Dismissed

M/s. Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC14 Nov 2022CRLP/1712/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the petitioners' plea to quash FIR proceedings for fraud and corruption. The Court held that since the investigation was ongoing and allegations were serious, no grounds existed to quash the proceedings at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' plea to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed; request for directions to CBI to produce documents was also denied.

M/s. Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs The… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENryTWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1712 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Nandini lndustries India Pvt Ltd (Formerly known as TSS Projects and lndustries Pvt Ltd) Rep., by Haridass Ramesh, H. No. 3-179/NR, Plot No. 179, Guttalabegumpet - Sl, Phase - ll, Kaveri Hills, Madhapur, Hyderabad 50008'l

¶9

Sri Haridass Ramesh, S/o Sri Haridass, Occ- Business, Age 45 years, Plot No.10't6/4, Road No.46 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033

¶10

Smt. Urvashi Ramesh, Wo. Sri Haridass Ramesh, Occ. Business, Age 40 years, Plot No.1016/A, Road No.46 Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500 033

¶11

...PETITIONERS No. 1 to 3 /ACCUSED 1 to 3

¶12

ANO

¶13

The State of Telangana , Represented by Special Standing Counsel, CBl, High Court of Telangana

¶14

State Bank of lndia, SAM Branch, Secunderabad, Telangana, Rep., by its DGM Shri Debasish Bhattacharjee.

¶15

...RESPONDENT No.2 /COMPLAINANT

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings against the Petitioner No.1 to 3 / Accused No.1 to 3 in FIR No. RC0352022A001 dt.31-01 -2022, PS ACB Hyderabad on the file of the Hon'ble Court of Prl. Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2022

¶18

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings against the Petitioner No.1 to 3 / Accused No.1 to 3 in FIR No. RC0352022A00'| dt.31 -01-2-022, PS ACB Hyderabad on the file of the Hon'ble Court of Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad^.

¶19

t.A. NO 20F 2022

¶20

Petition under Section 482 ot Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memora rdum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent no 1 to produce the docu nents; i.e.letter Ref No. C5/2020lC O -OO - I 2 )2O023O0 dated 1 1 I 1 2 I 2020

¶21

This Petition c:ming on for hearing,upon perusing ther Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal 1'etition and upon hearing the argument:; of Sri V. MURALI MANOHAR ,Advocate for the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 as well as .c;ri N. Nagendran, Special Public Prose )utor for CBI Cases on behalf of Resp orrdent No. 1 and Sri Alluri Krishnam Re iu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.

¶22

The Court made the fr,llowing: ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE DT. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.1712 OF 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

Heard Sri V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 as well as Sri N. Nagendran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for C.B.l. Cases. Though Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, Advocate, is on record, representing respondent No.2, learned counsel failed to submit his contention s.

¶28

Seeking the Court to quash the proceedings that are pending against the petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. RCO352022AOOI of ACB, Hyderabad, the present criminal petition is flled.

¶29

Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have not committed any offences whatsoever and due to a small and negligible issue and misunderstanding between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No.2, a complaint <sup>ras given and, indeed, the petitioners are not at fault. Learned counsel also states that in the letter addressed to the Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation

¶30

Dr.CSL, J lrl.l'.1'o- I7l2 ttf 2022 2

¶31

(for short 'CElJ, dated 12.12.2019, it is clearly mentioned that no public ser vants are involved in the alleged fraud and the same is the case with the Bank officials. Leil;-ned counsel submits that ,vhen those persons are not involvt:d, booking the case under th : provisions of Prevention of Corrup,tion Act is bad in law and on that sole ground, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶32

l,earned counsel further submits that he reqttested for relevant docu ments from CBI, which establrs,l-r,:s that the petitioners are not at fault and, therefore, a dir,:c:tion may be ISSuEd to the CBT to produce those docunre nt:;. Learned counsel finally states that, even otherwise, no casc is made out against the p, :titioners and, hence, the FIR is riable to be quashed.

¶33

Vehemen ly opposing the submissions thus rnirde, learned Standing Cour sel for CBI states that totally 3 I^. i Orores of amount was e nbezzled and the case is undr:r irrves;tigation. Learned couns( I also submits that due to the frau<l pl:ryed, the State Bank of I rclia sustained a loss o[ Rs. 1'l2 C]r ores and the case requires t rorough investigation. Learned Sgr<:cietl Public

¶34

Dr-CSl-, J

¶35

Crl.P.No. 17)2 of 2022

¶36

¶37

Prosecutor for CBI also states that petitioner No.l and the promoters, in collusion with other companies, resorted to diversion of loan proceeds, excess drawing of loans by inflating invoices, bills, routing the amounts through other Bank accounts, etc., and hence, thorough investigation is required.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his submission mainly relied upon the letter dated 12.12.2019 that was addressed by State Bank of India to the Joint Director of CBI, wherein and u,hereby it indicated that there is no involvement of Bank Stalf and no quid-pro-quo transactions were observed with the public servants.

¶39

The submission made, in this regard, by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, is that those were the observations of the Bank and the Bank officials to get themselves saved, have narrated thus and the case is under investigation and if there is no involvcment of the Bank staff, such an amount of Rs. 172 Crores would not have been left from the accounts of the Bank and thus, the letter addressed by the I Bank cannot be taken into consideration.

¶40

Dr.CSL, J t.-rl.P.No. l7l2 of 2022

¶41

¶42

As righ:11' submitted, it is not the observation of CBI that there is no ir volvement of public servants or th I Bank officials. Further, as s ubmitted by the learned Special Prrl:,lic Prosecutor for CBI, whe r the case is under investigation, basing on trivial grounds, the lrroceedings cannot be quashccl. Fttrthermore, when the case is under investigation, in case th,: ltetitioners are in requireme rt of certain documents from^t-he C[]1 , they have to move an ap rlication before the CBI seel<ing :<rpie s of those documents. Whether those documents can be rcve:rled during the pendencr of investigation can only be deci<led try the CBI Jn case, the r easoning given for non-issuance o.f <:opies of those documents is improper, then the petitioners rvor-tl,l be at liberty to approach either the concerned CBI^(]otrrt :rr this Court seeking for a rpropriate relief. As of now, as the i;rvestigation is still in progre ss, this Court is not inclined to 61iv': rtn,1 directions to the CBI to revea-l the information or to forwzu rl copies of any documents tc the petitioners herein.

¶43

Coming to the merits of the case, this Court does not find any grounds br quash of the proceedings. Havin5r regard to the nature of th: allegations leveled and the seriotrsness of the case, this Cturt is not inclined to exercise the power granted

¶44

Dr-CSL, J

¶45

Crt.P.No. t 712 of 2022

¶46

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to

¶47

quash the proceedings at this stage.

¶48

Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶49

1 1. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPY//

SD/.T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGIS,tRAR ,l v' SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The Principal Special JudgeforCBl^{Cases,Hyderabad.}

¶56

2- The Station House Officer:^{P.S. ACB., Hyderabad}

¶57

Two CCs to Sri N. Nagendran,^{Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases,} High Court for the State^{of Telangana(OUT)}

¶58

One CC to SRl. V. MURALI^{MANOHARAdvocate} [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to Sri ALLURI^{KRISHNAMRAJU,Advocate (OPUC)}

¶60

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DR. CSLJ

DATED:1411112022

ORDER

CRLP.No.1712 ot 2022

1l {,
r)ts
.i'
d 1o ,tlt znzl j,
*
:f g
.; ',AT crt

¶68

DISMTSSING^'I-HT], I )RL.PBTITION

¶69

c9c"i*l h.o.{ff"o

M/s. Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Nandini Industries India Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others v. The State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Putta Rajendra Prasad Vs The State of Telanangana

Kothakota Vijay Kumar and 4 others Vs The State of Telangana and another

Reguri Karunakar Vs The State of Telangana

Dasaradha Rama Rao Vs EmmidiKrishnaiah

Falaha Ur Rahaman Vs The State of Telangana

Mohd Abdul Rasheed Vs Rupesh Agarwal and another