IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6688 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SRI PRAVEEN SURENDIRAN S/O SURENDIRAN SHIVARAMAKRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESIDING AT MANAKIRI, 2ND CROSS STREET, KAMARAJ, THENVADAL STREET, MANAGIRI, MADHURAI – 625 020. ...PETITIONER (By Sri ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVAS RAO.S.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By SRI R.NATARAJ, AAG ALONG WITH SRI ROHITH.B.J., HCGP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439- CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.137 OF 2019 OF CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 12-B, 420, 149, 423, 465, 468, 471 AND 56 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition is filed by accused No.1 in P.C.R.No.9076 of 2019 filed by one Saurabh Kumar Singh inter alia alleging that he and accused No.2- Sreekumar Sundaramoorthy co-founded a Company called M/s.Norte Technologies India Private Limited (‘Company’ for short). The complainant was the person who was funding the Company. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 hatched a conspiracy to forge complainants’ signature on certain documents to cheat him. When the copies of the documents were downloaded from the Web-portal of Registrar of Companies (for short, hereinafter referred as ‘ROC’), complainant learnt that his resignation was reported to the ROC based on a fabricated letter dated 31.12.2015.
2. It is further stated that accused No.3 was appointed as an Additional Director in the Company.
Accused Nos. 3, 1, 5, 7 and 6 forced the complainant to sign a document and to take a part of the money, which he had invested or to face dire consequences. He signed a ‘No objection agreement’ on 03.08.2017 under threat and coercion and subsequently, accused No.1 transferred Rs.20 Lakhs online to complainant’s bank account. It is further stated that by the aforementioned acts of the accused, complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.50 Lakhs being the initial funding and 50% of the amount from proceeds of transfer of all rights from the Company in favour of M/s.Europ Assistance. Learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.137 of 2019 has been registered on 23.07.2019 in Cubbon Park Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 149, 423, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC.
3. Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that this is a case of a regular business transaction between the petitioner and the accused which has been given the colour of criminal conspiracy. He adverted to ‘separation agreement’ dated 28.07.2017 and submitted that pursuant to the separation agreement, complainant has been paid his due share. He further contended that the date of knowledge of complainant’s resignation on 31.12.2015 from the Board of Company based on alleged fabricated document is not forthcoming in the complaint. Similarly, the date on which the complainant was allegedly threatened is also not forthcoming in the complaint. In substance, he argued that complaint does not contain any specific dates and overt-acts of the petitioner.
4. Sri.R.Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the agreement in this case is tip of the ice-berg and the third respondent has committed serious financial irregularity and all the Directors have inflated the value of the Company and sold the same. Police have filed a preliminary report. During the course of investigation, accused has confessed to have destroyed the original resignation letter which was filed with the ROC. The signature found in the document with the ROC varies with the signature of the complainant. He further submitted that the investigating officer has addressed a letter on 05.09.2019 to the Director General of Income- tax (Investigation) to investigate for possible tax evasion stating interalia that the Company was involved in misusing funds to evade taxes in forming new Companies in India and abroad. He further submitted that the investigating officer has also written to the Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate on 26.09.2019 with a request to take cognizance for possible violation of PMLA by the Promoters and Directors of M/s.Norte Technologies India Private Limited, M/s.ONB Technologies India Private Limited and M/s.Europ Assistance. However, no further action has been taken by them. Further the action taken by the Income-tax authorities as also the Enforcement Directorate is also not known till date. With these submissions, he opposed the petition.
5. Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, learned Advocate for the complainant has filed an application under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. He has also filed written submissions. At his request, he was also permitted to address the Court. He has placed reliance on paragraphs No. 10 and 11 of decision of the Apex Court in Kirender Sarkar and others Vs. State of Assam reported in (2009)12 SCC 342. He argued that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire events and minutest details cannot be given in FIR. The accused persons have hatched a conspiracy. Therefore, releasing the petitioner adversely affects further investigation.
6. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
7. Shri. Venkata Reddy is correct in his submission that complaint is not an encyclopedia and during the course of investigation, several things can be unearthed. But in the case on hand, the specific allegation is that the complainant and second accused, namely, Sreekumar Sundaramoorthy formed a Company called M/s.Norte Technologies India Private Limited. The other accused hatched a conspiracy to remove the complainant from the Board. Accused Nos.1, 4 and 3 have been brought on Board subsequently. It is alleged that petitioner was threatened to sign his resignation letter and also ‘No objection agreement’ on 03.08.2017. The main grievance of the complainant is summarized in Paragraph No.23 of the complaint, which reads as follows:
“23. Consequently, due to the offences committed by all the accused, the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.50 Lakhs, initial funding to M/s.NTI Private Limited, Bengaluru, 50% of amount from proceeds of transfer of all rights of M/s.NTI Private Limited, Bengaluru to M/s.Europ Assistance, as stated earlier, for Rs.7 Crores, i.e., Rs.3.5 Crores and in total Rs.4 Crores. Hence, this complaint”.
8. In substance, petitioner’s grievance is that he had invested the money to form the Company in M/s.Norte Technologies India Private Limited. That, accused in the private complaint have inflated the value of the Company and sold the same for a higher price. In order to deprive complainant of his money, which he had invested and also the proceeds of the sale of the Company, he has been eased out by using a fabricated ‘resignation letter’, upon which, his signature has been forged. Further, on 03.8.2017, he was forced to sign ‘No objection agreement’.
9. To a query made by this Court, it was submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner was in police custody for fourteen days and the same is not disputed by the prosecution. Petitioner was arrested on 11.08.2019. After completion of police remand, he has been given to judicial custody. The learned Additional Advocate General and Sri.Venkata Reddy sought to drive home a point that the accused in the complaint have inflated the value of the Company and that the source of money invested in the Company and proceeds of sale of Company require to be investigated. However, the material on record placed before this Court does not disclose anything more than the complainant’s case, namely financial loss of Rs.50 Lakhs and claim on share in the sale proceeds.
10. Admittedly, complainant was in police custody for fourteen days and no further custody was sought by the prosecution. The prosecution have placed on record the preliminary investigation report, which runs in 429 pages.
11. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the signature of the complainant in the ROC record does not match with complainant’s signature. He sought to support his submission by stating that accused has confessed during police custody that he has destroyed the original resignation letter.
12. It is also submitted that the police have addressed letters to the Director General of Income-tax (Investigation) and Joint Director of Enforcement Directorate to look into the violation of Income-tax as also the PMLA. But as on date, no material is placed before this Court to show that there is any progress in that behalf.
13. Suffice to note that the material on record does not disclose anything more than a personal grievance in the form of financial loss which according to the complainant has occurred at the instance of the accused, on the strength of the alleged forged document called ‘resignation letter’. It is submitted in Paragraph No.19 of the complaint that agreement was signed on 03.08.2019. Reckoned from that date, complaint has been filed nearly after two years. Admittedly, petitioner is a business-man and a Director in the Company. The date on which, information was downloaded from the Webportal of the ROC and the date on which his Chartered Accountant got the information as alleged in the complaint are also not forthcoming. To a pointed question, the learned Advocate for the complainant submitted that the complainant was panic stricken, he was coerced and threatened with dire consequences and therefore, he is unable to state the date. It is relevant to note that the complaint has been filed after two years after the alleged incident. Even approximate date or month is not forthcoming in the record. To summarize the case, the entire complaint hinges around financial loss that the complainant has allegedly suffered in the hands of the accused. Petitioner has remained in police custody for fourteen days and now in judicial custody. A preliminary report consisting of 429 pages has already been prepared by the police. The prosecution has not sought for further custody of the petitioner. In the circumstances, in my view, petition merits consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER (a) Petition is allowed.
(b) Petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.137 of 2019 of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru upon his executing a personal bond for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate, (c) Petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during further investigation, if any, and appear before him as and when called upon;
(d) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every 1st and 3rd Sunday of each calendar month between 10 a.m. & 1 p.m till charge sheet is filed;
(e) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to prosecution witness or any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or investigating officer;
(f) Petitioner shall not involve himself in any criminal activities; and (g) If the petitioner violates any one of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
(h) Observations contained in this order are only for the purpose of consideration of bail petition and shall not affect the merits of the case during trial.
Petition disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DH