Dismissed

Amarnath Devaki v. The State of Telangana And Another

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024CRLP/1401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court petition sought to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner alleging violations of the Companies Act. The court dismissed the petition, holding that a trial is required to adjudicate the gravity of the allegations as there is prima facie material against the accused.

What did the court decide?

The appearance of the petitioner in the trial court is dispensed with until presence is required; the criminal petition was dismissed.

Amarnath Devaki Vs The State of Telangana And Another — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ss l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V. VENUGOPAL}

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION^{NO:'lzl01 OF 2020}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Amarnath Devaki, S/o. Prabhakar^{Chetty, Aged about 42 Years, M/sSree} feia eenent Fund Limited,^{R/o. 8 - 2 ' 293l8\l1l1o2lA11. Bar\ara Hills, Road} No'. 12, MLA Colony, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶9

...Petitioner/Accused No.4

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana^{Rep., by the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the} State of Telangana,^HYderabad.

¶12

. ..Respondent

¶13

2 Reoistrar of Comoanies(^for the^{State of Telangana) ll nd Fbor, Corporate} Bhivan, Bandlaguda,^{Nigole. Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RespondenUDe-facto Complainant

¶15

Petition under section⁴⁸² of^{cr.P .c praying that in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof crrminal Petition,the High court may be} pleased to quash the cc No.71 of^{2019 on the file of courtof the SpecialJudge} tor Economic Offences, at^{Hyderabad District against the Petitioners/Accused4.}

¶16

l.A. NO: 2AF 2O2O

¶17

Petition under section^{482 of cr_P.c praying that in the ci{cumsdances} stated in the Memorandum^{of Groundsof criminal Petition,the Highcourt rnay be} pleased to grant slay of all further^{proceedings in cc No 71 of 2019 on ttre fib of} bourt of tfd Special Judge^{for Economic Offences,at HyderabadDistrictinc{ttding} the appearance of the P;titioner^{or Accused 4 till the disposalof the MainQuash} Petition in the interest of^the iustioe

¶18

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶19

Petition under section^{482 of Cr P-C praying that an the circumstanoes} stated in the Memorandum^{of Grounds of criminal Petition, the Highcourtmay be} pleased to extend the interim order^{dtd: 27 t2t202jin crlP 1401/2020 pendingthe} disposal of the above CrlP.

¶20

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Jtrlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH Venkat Raman, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms.S Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 on behalf of the Respondent No-1 and of Sri S Janardhan, Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE IIONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEE.V.\IENUGOPAL}

¶24

CRI}IIN^{AL PEf,ITION No.14OIoF 2o2o}

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Criminal^{Petition has been frled seeking to quasht1le} proceedings in^{C.C-No.71of 2Ol9 on the file of learned Special} Judge for Economic^{Offences,at Hyderabad (for short' "the trial} Court").

¶27

Heard Mr.Ch.Venkat^{Raman,learned counsel forthe} Mr.S.Janardhan,^{learned standing} petitioner/accused^No.4, counsel for^Central Government/resPondent^No'2and Ms.S.Madhavi,^{learnedAssistant Public Prosecutor appearing for} respondent No.^1-State.

¶28

Brief facts of the^{case are that the petitioner herein and} other accused^{persons i.e', accused No'I to 3' 5 and 6 were} arrayed as accused^{in C.C.No'71 of 2Ol9 on the file of Special} Judge for Economic^{Offences, at Hyderabad' The accusedNo'6 is} a public limited^{company and the accusedNos'l to 5 are the} Managing Directors^{of the said public limited company' By virtue} of the orders of^{the Governmentof India' Ministry of Corporate} Affairs (MCA) vide its^{letter dated F'No'O4fial2Ol7 ICL-[(SER)'}

¶29

¶30

dated 06.03.2018 the books of accounts and other records of A6/company r,".as ordered for inspection under Section 206(5) of the Companies Act, 20 13 based on the complaint received from PMO office vide letter dated,2Z.O2.2O1g referring the complaint of Ms'sathyavathy, Ms.vani and Ms. Uma who are t].e de facto complainarrts herein against the A6/company.

¶31

During the inspection of A6/company, the inspecting oflicers found that accused Nos. I to 6 have violated Section 164(2)(b) of the Companies Act 2013. The A6lcompany is public servant. Basing on the said complaint a case was registered as C.C.No.71 ot 2OI9 on the file of learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, at Hyderabad District.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 contended that the de facto complainant/2.a respondent herein lodged a false and frivolous complaint before the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, at Hyderabad. The inspecting officers without proper investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused No.4 further contended that the petitioner has already submitted his resignation as Director frorn the A6/company, as such taking cognizance against him is illegal.

¶33

¶34

The petitioner / accused No.4 further submits^{that the contents of} the complaint and ttre charge sheet do not^{make out any offence} as alleged by the de facto complainant.^{Hence,prayed to quash} the proceedings in C.C.No.71 of 2Ol9 on^{the file of leamed} Special Judge for Economic Offences, at^{HyderabadDistrict} against the petitioner/accused No.4.

¶35

Opposing the same learned counsel^{for the respondentNo'2} would submit that since trial is in progress^{before the Court} below, interference of this Court at this stage^{is not warranted} and seeks to dismiss the criminal^petition.

¶36

trarned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{would submit that} until and unless the trial is conducted, truth^{cannot be elicited} and therefore, seeks to dismiss the criminal^petition-

¶37

On perusal of the entire record pima facie^{it disclosedthat} the petitioner/accused No.4 along with other^{accused persons} i.e., accused Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 have been^{involve d' in embezzling} of funds relating to deposits, thrifts etc-, in^{the public limited} company.

¶38

g. During the inspection of tJ'.e A6/company,^{it is found by} inspecting officers that certain deposits^{have been accepted}

¶39

¶40

exceeding to twenty times of its Net Owned Funds (NOF) as per the last audited finalcial statement.

¶41

lO. karned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 contended that the de facto complainant/2"d respondent lodged a false complaint without proper enquiry and filed charge sheet without any basis. The petitioner/ accused No.4 has not adduced any oral or documenta5, er.idence to substantiate his case that the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence as stated by the de facto complainant/2nd respondent. The petitioner/accused No.4 has been involved in the offence of economic in nature. When lakhs of rupees are said to have misappropriated, until and unless full-fledged trial is condrrcted, the allegations levelled by the de facto complainant/2"d respondent cannot be adjudicated when especially there is prima facie^material against the petitioner/ accused No.4. Moreover, the offence is grievous in nature connected with economic in nature.

¶42

ll. This matter requires detailed examination by the leamed trial Court. Therefore, in view of the above obserrrations, the criminal petition deserves to be dismissed, and accordingly dismissed. However, as sought for by learned counsel for the petitiorrer, the appea-rance oi petitioner/accused No.4 before the

¶43

¶44

trial Court^{is dispensedwith until and unless his presence rs} required by^{the trial Court'The petitioner/accusedNo'4 is at} liberty to work^{out the remediesin accordance with law including} filing of application^{under Section 239 Cr'P'C'The Trial Court} shall conduct^{the trial in free and fair manner and conclude the} matter as^{expeditiouslyas possible' With these observations'this} Criminal Petition^{is dismissed'There shall be no order as to} CoStS.

¶45

In the^{result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed'There} shall be no^{order as to costs}

¶46

Miscellaleous^{Petitions, pending if any' shall stand clos}

¶47

Sd,. A.V.S. RASAD ASSISTANT^R ISTRAR

/ITRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1. l[:.;".;,,1,,,YS:J;JFt'S"Ji:."'1irl"3:,ft":ll^'JlTl"orreransanaat

¶52

J B'"'""t1'?3i",,'el,y:15lllt?l;i,il"Ell,"",:"iYsI,"

¶53

4 One CC^{to Sri S Janardhat} 5 Two CD^CoPies

ADK/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

ORDER

CRLP.No.1401 ot 2020

,1 yt.E S T41
k
<br>r
o() 2 4 FEB 2i25 ) I
C'
II
<br>i
.:;',6TC'f

¶61

DISMISSING THE CRLP WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

Amarnath Devaki v. The State of Telangana And Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Devaki 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

Hanumanth Reddy Vs Chathurdevi

M.Lakshmi Vs M/s Innova Hospitala Pvt. Ltd.

J.S.R. Durga Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Amarnath Devaki Vs The State of Telangna, And Another

Mohd. Rafeeq Vs Ayesha Begum

Dr. Pulipaka Rajesh Vs The State of Telangana