DEEPAK UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in the FIR in Crime No.28 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent registered on the report given by the second respondent/defacto complainant.

(2.) The allegations in the FIR are that Subrata Monindranath Maity, petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 4039 of 2021 (hereinafter referred as 'Resolution Professional' for the sake of convenience) was appointed as Resolution Professional for a Corporate debtor by the name M/s.Bhatia Coke Energy Limited (hereinafter referred as 'BCEL' for the sake of convenience); that Mr.Raman Ramakrishnan and Mr.Deepak Upadhyaya, Petitioners in Crl.O.P. Nos. 4086 and 5800 of 2021 (hereinafter referred as 'Associates') are the associates of Subrata Monindranath Maity ; that the defacto complainant is the CEO of a Company by name Tamil Nadu Coke and Power Pvt. Ltd.; that the defacto complainant's company were suppliers of coal / coke to the Corporate debtor, BCEL; that after the Resolution Professional took charge, the petitioners with an intent to make wrongful gain demanded commission money in lieu of placing procurements / purchase orders from the defacto complainant; that the defacto complainant was asked to over value the invoices and pay the difference to the companies named by the petitioners as against fake and false invoices; that the petitioners had thus misappropriated the funds of BCEL; that the petitioners adopted similar modus with other companies also; that the defacto complainant had so far, paid commission through the companies named by the petitioners in the following manner viz., M/s.Ram Shyam Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., were paid Rs.9,80,000.00, M/s.Rashmila Pariyar were paid Rs.3,94,000.00 and M/s.Shravan Logistics Pvt.Ltd., were paid Rs.11,60,000.00; that the BCEL's operation was stopped pursuant to the closure notice issued by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 1/4/2020; that thereafter the petitioners started demanding more money from the defacto complainant and also threatened him and his family members of dire consequences if the defacto complainant revealed this fact to third parties and thus, the petitioners committed the offences under Ss. 406, 408, 417, 420, 468, 471 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that,