SYED ASLAM AZEEZ PASHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and 3 to 6 respectively praying this Court to quash the complaint dated 11.10.2019/12.10.2019 and FIR dated 12.10.2019 in Crime No. 194/2019 submitted before the IV Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru registered by respondent No. 1 Halasur Gate Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 409 and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC and grant such other and further reliefs as are just even including the costs of the petition.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant's father and the complainant along with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 2001 started Rajamahal Silks Private Limited in premises No. 48/1, Sanjeevappa Lane, Avenue Road Cross, Bengaluru - 560 002 and they are the Directors of the said Company. All the four persons have invested the money when the Karnataka Government auctioned Spun Silks Private Limited Company for Rs. 1,65,00,000/- and the same has been questioned before the Courts and ultimately the Apex Court in the year 2016 directed the Karnataka High Court to appoint the Official Liquidator and re-auction the property and to make the payment out of the auctioned amount in favour of Rajamahal Silks Private Limited. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have opened the account in Catholic Syrian Bank and an amount of Rs. 5,54,36,065/- was paid and they have opened the Company 'Pasha Associates' and accused Nos. 1 and 2 disbursed the amount in their favour without the knowledge of the complainant and cheated the complainant. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioners herein, who have been arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 6. When the FIR is registered, these petitioners have approached this Court by filing separate petitions.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioners in the respective petitions is that the very complaint is filed in respect of legally barred debt and though the dispute between the parties is civil dispute, with an intention to harass the petitioners herein, arm twisting the factual aspects, invoked the criminal prosecution. It is contended that the complainant is the erstwhile Director and the allegations made against the petitioners is that they cheated and committed the breach of trust. The learned counsel would contend that it is not in dispute that the Company was floated in 2001 by the complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 2. In 2003, they have purchased the land and machinery i.e., Spun Silks Private Limited. It is the contention of the complainant that he had invested an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the same is an unsecured loan. It is also not in dispute that the Supreme Court passed an order in 2016 remanding the matter and the High Court also passed an order after remanding the matter. It is contended that legal notice was issued on 24.09.2016. It is also not in dispute that the Company was struck off on 17.07.2017.