M/S. Comfort Finacap Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 27 August, 2018
Court- Telangana High Court
Bench- M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Referred- Section 482 CrPC
Appellant- M/S. Comfort Fincap Limited
Respondent- State of Telangana
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The de facto complainant operates under the name and style of M/s Liquors India Limited as well as M/s Ravi Kumar Distilleries Limited (RKDL). The firms came up with public problem in order to generate essential capital for business expansion, and in order to bring public issue, M/s.Ravi Kumar Distilleries Limited (RKDL), the de facto compliant, contacted one Mr.Anil Agrawal, Director of the Company M/s. Comfort Securities Limited, and agreed to execute the appropriate measures for a public offering on M/s.Ravi Kumar Distilleries Limited’s behalf. The de facto complaint was made to open an account with the 3rd respondent herein/Central Depository Services (India) Limited and said to have been made to sign by the 2nd respondent on blank cheques and blank stamp papers for the purpose of creating public issue.
It is also alleged that Anil Agrawal provided necessary financial assistance to the defacto complainant by making necessary payments during the relevant period, and that the public issue was successful, with the entire amount received by the defacto complainant through the respondent/bank.
It is alleged that Mr.Anil Agrawal misappropriated the defacto complainant’s cheques that were handed over to him by moving the funds into bogus accounts in the names of Mr.Anil Agrawal’s close colleagues, and then pocketed the funds.
The table shows the accounts of Anil Agrawal as well as other accounts maintained by other petitioners. Thus, under the guise of providing necessary financial assistance, Anil Agrawal mortgaged and sold some shares to recover the amount advanced, and said Mr.Agrawal obtained M/s.Liquors India Limited in his favour and/or in the favour of his close associates by taking forcible possession of those documents.
It is stated that the 1st respondent, under the influence of the 2nd respondent/de facto complaint, committed several illegal and heinous acts in the name of investigating the alleged crime. The first respondent frozen the demat accounts of petitioners and others with the third respondent, who had nothing to do with the complainant’s conduct. The accounts have been frozen only because Mr.Anil Agrawal is one of the firms’ Directors, despite having no involvement with the companies’ operations.
ARGUMENTS-
Under the pretence of an investigation into the charges made in the FIR referred to above, the 1st respondent sent letters to the 3rd respondent herein requesting the freezing of petitioners’ and a few others’ demat accounts. As a result, the petitioners’ demat account numbers 1205370000016984 and 1205370000001585, as well as their other accounts, were frozen in light of the different letters addressed by the first respondent to the third respondent in all of the petitions, as stated in column No.3 of the table. The freezing of demat accounts and other accounts with the 3rd respondent in all these petitions, by exercising power under Section102 Cr.P.C., without issuing prior notice or intimation by the 1st respondent is a serious illegality. The petitioners only came to know about the freezing of accounts with the 3rd respondent on 03.05.2017 simultaneously on other days when disclosed attachment proceedings issued by the 1st respondent for freezing of the accounts. Thus, the alleged freezing of demat accounts and other accounts without affording an opportunity is against the principles of natural justice.
JUDGEMENT-
The first and foremost contention raised by the 2nd respondent’s counsel, Sri K.Raghava Charyulu, is that this Court cannot entertain a petition under Section482 Cr.P.C when an alternative remedy under Sections 451 and 457of Cr.P.C is available to the petitioners. They can avail remedy under Section457 Cr.P.C during the pendency of investigation or under Section 451 Cr.P.C if the investigation is completed and Calendar Case is pending for trial. Instead of availing such remedies available under statute, the petitioners approached this Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section482 Cr.P.C to quash the order. On this ground alone, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Whereas Mr.P.V.A Padmanabhma and Mr.Anantha Krishna contended that power conferred on the Court under Section482 Cr.P.C is inherent and language used in Section482 Cr.P.C is clear that any of the provisions of CrPC shall not limit the jurisdiction of High Court and the High Court can pass any orders exercising inherent power and that no specific plea regarding the maintainability of petitions under Section482 Cr.P.C against the orders passed under Section102 Cr.P.C was raised in the counter. But for the first time, the said question was raised during the argument and in the absence of any plea in the counter, the petitions cannot be dismissed on the sole ground.
Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of Court. In proceedings instituted on complaint exercise of the inherent power to quash the proceedings is called for only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent AIR 1960 SC 866 AIR 1990 SC 494 powers under Section482. It is not, however, necessary that there should be a meticulous analysis of the case, before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or not. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears on a consideration of the allegations, in the light of the statement on oath of the complainant that ingredients of the offence/offences are disclosed, and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious. in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court.
Written by Priyanka Davar an inter under legal Vidhiya.
