LAWS(KER)-2018-2-55

MUHAMMED RIYAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On February 14, 2018
Muhammed Riyas Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the 1st accused in Crime No.3211 of 2017 of the Central Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 120B , 420 , 465 , 467 and 468 of the IPC.

(3.) The facts leading to the registration of the crime can be summarized as hereunder: The de facto complainant commenced a business in footwear and related items as a proprietary concern in the year 1995. The same was converted into a partnership firm in the year 1999 and some new partners were inducted. Business developed and in the year 2005, he along with the petitioner and others registered the firm as a Company. They expanded the business considerably and opened branches all over India. Within a short span of time, the Company became an established brand and was able to achieve an annual turnover of over Rs.25 Crores. In course of time, the petitioner herein persuaded the complainant to induct some of his friends and relatives as Directors of the Company. Disputes occurred between the parties with the de facto complainant on one side and the accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the other side. Though efforts were taken to settle the disputes, no settlement could be arrived at. While so, with a view to eject the de facto complainant from the Company, the petitioner herein with the assistance of the rest of the accused are alleged to have forged a resignation letter purported to have been signed by the de facto complainant and by fraudulently getting it digitally signed uploaded it with the Registrar of Companies. The resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company was also forged and the same was also sent to the Registrar of Companies. Thereafter, substantial sums were misappropriated by the petitioner and the other Directors to the detriment of the de facto complainant. According to the defacto complainant, he had sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.7 Crores due to the illegal acts of the petitioner and others.