IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA Criminal Petition No.9167 of 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SANDEEP KUMAR WADHWA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O LATE SUSHIL KUMAR WADHWA MANAGING DIRECTOR CHARIOT INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
NO 97, CHUDAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 563130 2. SMT. KALPANA WADHWA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O SRI SANDEEP KUMAR WADHWA DIRECTOR, CHARIOT INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD NO 97, CHUDAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE MALUR HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 563130 BOTH RESIDING AT NO 100, PALM MEADOWS, WHITEFIELD BANGALORE – 560066 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 2. SRI. VIMALESH KUMAR SHUKLA S/O SRI V. S. SHUKLA AGED ABOUT NOT KNWON R/AT NO C- 95 STERLING VILLA GRARIDE KADUGODI, WHITEFIELD ROAD BANGALORE - 560067 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I. S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI. V. N. KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 - ABSENT) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.289/2016 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420,506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDNG BEFORE THE PRL.C.J. (Sr.Dn.) AND CJM COURT, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered in Crime No.289/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
3. The FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant was an employee of M/s. Chariot International Pvt. Ltd., of which the petitioners herein were the Directors. He worked in the company in various capacities. In the year 2012-13 he was made the CEO of the company and consequently he was allotted 7.5% share in the company and thereafter in the year 2015 he acquired 25% equity shares of the company by paying consideration as per the share purchase agreement dated 20.05.2015 and became a Director of the company. The further allegation made in the complaint is that petitioner No.1 being the major stake holder, started manipulating the stock books by inflating the stocks in trade in order to mislead the financial institutions and he used to illegally transfer funds and divert the funds by sending the material to his company in USA and was drawing a remuneration of `7,50,000/- per month (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only). Petitioner No.1 made the complainant to give personal guarantee to the tune of `16.5 crores to Canara Bank overseas branch for the purpose of availing working capital and term loan. Further allegations made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the complaint read as under:
“7. I state that the above said person is liable to pay me a sum of Rupees 3,22,55,634 (Rupees Three Crores, Twenty Two Lakhs, Fifty Five thousand, Six hundred and thirty four only). The detailed statement of account is set forth hereunder:
1. Leave encashment @ 30 days PA for 15 years @ Rs.3,00,000 for 30 days (3,00,000*15) 45,00,000/ 2. Gratuity for 15 years @ Basic Rs.1,05,000 lacs (15 days salary for each year of completed service) 105000*15/26*15 9,08,654/ 3. Pending Remuneration for the month of June 2016 3,00,000/ 4. Pending Remuneration for the month of August 2016, due to non-settlement 6,00,000/ 5. Outstanding interest on a sum of Rupees 24,50,000/- the loan advanced by my client to you No.1 for the period of 10 months @ 24% per annum i.e. 4,90,000/ 6. Pending travelling Expenses (Bills handed over to Accounts Dept) 24,500/ 7. Share Money a) 4,14,791 share at Rs.10 each=41,47,910/ b) Reserves & Surplus as per financial year 2015-16 accounts = Rs.8,51,63,219. That the 25% of the said surplus = 2,12,84,570/ (As per provisional Financial for 2015-16 submitted to bank) ------------------------
Total 3,22,55,634 Rupees- Three Crores, Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty five thousand six hundred and thirty four only) 8. I state that the above said person and his wife Kalpana are with criminal dishonest intention as not paying the said amounts to me and thereby they have cheated me. Kalpana has threatened me several times to make me accept their terms and conditions. On 16th July, 2016 they threatened me and my wife that if I won’t accept his terms and condition they will harm me as well as they will file false allegations on me and put me behind the bars, however, they have succeeded in filing a false complaint against me with Mahadevapura Police Station by giving their false residence address and with their personal influence as they have criminal intention to not pay my dues.”
4. From the above averments it could be safely gathered that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioners is purely civil in nature. It is submitted that the respondent has resorted to arbitration proceedings in respect of the share purchase agreement dated 20.05.2015 seeking to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising out of the employment of respondent No.2. In the backdrop of the above allegations, the initiation of criminal proceedings, in my view, is only an attempt to compel the petitioners to settle the claims of respondent No.2. The complaint does not disclose necessary facts constituting criminal offence either under Section 420 or under Section 506 of IPC. The complaint does not contain any allegation of deception or inducement by the petitioners so as to constitute an offence under Section 420 of IPC.
5. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the prosecution of petitioners for the alleged offences is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court. The allegations made in the complaint cannot be investigated by the police or by criminal Courts. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners based on the above allegations is liable to be quashed.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.289/2016 dated 17.09.2016 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed.
Sd/- Judge RD