THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8409 of 2012 Date:04.08.2014 Between:
Mukesh Yadav . Petitioner.
AND State of Andhra Pradesh through S.H.O, Medchal rep by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another.
. Respondents.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8409 of 2012 ORDER:
This petition is filed to quash C.C.No.304/2012 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal for alleged offences under Sections 107, 109, 111, 120, 120-B, 403, 405, 406, 407, 409, 411, 414, 418, 424, 427 read with read with 34 IPC.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Advocate for petitioner submitted that petitioner, who is fourth accused in the above referred complaint, was implicated under the presumption that he was one of the director of A1 company, but as seen from Form No.32 obtained from the Registrar of Companies, this petitioner is not a director at any point of time and therefore, the allegations against the petitioner in that capacity cannot be accepted. He further submitted that the other allegations in the complaint are omnibus allegations and no specific allegations are made against the petitioner and continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of Court. He submitted that in Form No.32, originally there were five directors and as on now, only two directors are remained and in both the forms, name of the petitioner is not there. On the other hand, advocate for second respondent submitted that according to allegations in the complaint, the petitioner represented to A1 company and tried to convince the complainant company and for that reason only, the stock of potato suffered higher Total Potato Defect (TPoD) and sustained loss, and according to allegations, this petitioner personally came to Mumbai Office of complainant and prior to that he also had been to Bahadurgarh Unit and not complied with the oral assurances. He submitted that may be the designation as in the cause title is wrong, but there are specific allegations against the petitioner and those aspects have to be decided during trial, but not at this stage. He further submitted that the offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are many in number and Section 34 IPC along with Sections 107, 109 & 120-B IPC are also there, therefore, the criminal conspiracy or common intention has to be decided only during trial.
4. I have perused the material papers filed along with the quash petition.
5. The main contention of the petitioner is that since he is not a director of A1 company, he is no way concerned with their business transactions and the allegations in that connection are in correct. As seen from the complaint, the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other two accused on behalf of A1 company tried to convince the complainant company, which resulted in loss and it is also averred in the complaint that the petitioner personally visited Mumbai Office and also Bahadurgarh Unit of the complainant company. Now these allegations are matter of evidence and they cannot be decided in a quash petition. When Section 120-B IPC is also attributed allegations touching the main offences cannot decided in a quash petition. Criminal conspiracy even can be gathered from the circumstances and there may not be direct material in all cases for criminal conspiracy. When the petitioner’s role is attributed in the complaint whether it is correct or not has to be decided while appreciating evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant. So considering the submissions and counter submissions of both sides and the material papers filed along with the quash petition, I am of the view that trial Court is to be directed to proceed with the trial and complete it, as expeditiously as possible, by dispensing with the presence of petitioner, because he is from other state and decide the matter on merits by giving opportunity to the petitioner to raise all these objections and to decide them without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.
6. For these reasons, petition is disposed of directing the Court below to dispose of the main C.C., as expeditiously as possible by dispensing with presence of petitioner for each and every adjournment. However, petitioner shall appear as and when directed or the trial Court feels that his physical presence is necessary for any specific purpose. Petitioner is given liberty to urge all these grounds before the trial Court and the trial Court shall consider them, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition, shall shat dismissed.
JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR
Date:04.08.2014 mrb