RAVINDRA T. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is arrayed as A3 in Crime No. 448/12 on the file of the respondent/police registered for the offences u/ss. 463, 464, 465, 420, 120B r/w. 34 of IPC, is before this Court seeking for grant of Anticipatory Bail. The respondent/police on the basis of the complaint filed u/s. 200 of Cr. P.C. by the complainant -Balakrishna H.N., referred for investigation u/s. 156(3)(c) of Cr. P.C., have registered the above case against the petitioners and have taken up investigation.

(2.) IT is alleged among other things in the complaint, the petitioner and two others have established a Company under the name and style Shambala Value Systems Pvt. Ltd. which is situated at No. 98/a, II floor, Venus Complex, 10th cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 082. The complainant is a Businessman, A1, A2 in the case are his family friends and A3 is a Chartered Accountant. A1 to A3 had approached him to start a business undertaking for distribution of mobile phones in Karnataka and accordingly, he agreed for the same. Thereafter the aforementioned Company came to be established under the guidance of A3 and it was registered in the office of the Registrar of Companies. It is further alleged the complainant and the other three accused had invested a sum of Rs. 37,33,883/ - each for carrying on the business. They had also assured him that they would make him as a Director of the Company. After the Company was established, some difference arose between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other hand in respect of issuance of a cheque by the complainant in favour of one Manipal Enterprises. The said cheque was bounced and criminal action was initiated by the said Manipal Enterprises, in whose favour cheque was issued, against the complainant only. At that point of time the complainant came to know that he has not been inducted as a Director in the Company established. He is only held as a shareholder. It is further alleged that before the Registrar of Companies he was shown as a Director by forging his signature on the documents to be submitted for the said purpose. Therefore, he filed the complaint alleging that by forging his signature he is shown as the Director in the Company established by them and they have also not returned the entire amount invested by him at the time it was started.

(3.) AS against this the learned HCGP vehemently opposed the application filed by the petitioner.