RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition is filed seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in FIR No.696 of 2007 dated 1.11.2007 on the file of the respondent police.

(2.) THE sum and substance of the first information report lodged by the de facto complainant with the respondent herein is as follows:- THE de facto complainant was one among the Directors/Partners enjoying equal right in respect of Hotel business viz., Picnic Hotels Private Limited at Poonamallee High Road, Chennai. Because of some misunderstanding between the brothers, several civil cases are pending on the file of this High Court as well as before the Company Law Board. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Ashok Kumar Gupta, who are the brothers of the de facto complainant, joined together and created false and fraudulent documents and produced the same before the public authorities and also before the Company Law Board as if the de facto complainant had resigned from the Directorship of Picnic Hotels Private Limited when actually he had been enjoying equal share in the entire business. THE above action of the two aforesaid brothers of the de facto complainant amounts to cheating.

(3.) THE de facto complainant was permitted to intervene in the petition seeking quashment. He has contended that the memorandum of understanding dated 24.5.1998 was not yet implemented fully. In the absence of compliance of the terms of memorandum of understanding by all the parties, the accused are not entitled to have complete control over the management of the business Picnic Hotels Private Limited. THE de facto complainant and his other brothers have got equal right, title and interest in the said Hotel business. THE Registrar of Companies is contemplating action by issuing show cause notice to the petitioners for the submission of returns with false particulars. THE de facto complainant continued to be a lawful Director of Picnic Hotels Private Limited. He continued to enjoy 10,000 shares in the said hotel. It is a case where this court was pleased to direct the respondent police to investigate the complaint. THErefore, the de facto complainant has sought to dismiss the petition seeking quashment.