SRINIVASA NAIDU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in First Information Report registered in Crime No. 06 of 2012 dated 14.06.2012 on the file of the Inspector of Police, EOW II (HQ), Anna Nagar, Chennai-2.

(2.) The 2nd respondent/de-facto complainant lodged a complaint dated 10.04.2012 with the Inspector of Police, EOW (II), Head Quarters, Chennai contending that during August 2009, he met one Mr. Agasti, Deputy General Manager of Suzlon Energy Limited and one Mr. Srinivasa Naidu, in connection with purchase of shares of Suzlon Energy Limited. According to the de-facto complainant, the above mentioned persons introduced him to one Mr. Rajan and as per the instructions of the said Mr. Rajan, he transferred Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to the account of Mr. Rajan. However, no shares were allotted to him and that the accused 1. Agusti, Srinivasa Naidu, 3. Rajan cheated him. The Inspector of Police, EOW (II), Chennai registered the First Information Report in Crime No. 6/2012 against the aforesaid persons for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In the present petition, the petitioners (A1 and A2) have contended that they are working for Suzlon Energy Ltd, a Public Limited company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and installation of Wind Turbine Generators of various capacities and is one among the world's leading wind turbine suppliers, with an annual turnover of around Rs. 10,000/- crores. According to them, one Mr. Rajan. Expedite and Mr. A.Pichaikani of AVT Coconut Processing Industries Limited placed orders for purchase of 10 wind turbine generators with the Suzlon Energy Limited and also handed over 4 cheques for Rs. 27,38,89,560, drawn on Central Bank of India, Nagarcoil branch. A Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.08.2009 was also executed and that is all the petitioners are aware of about the AVT Coconut Processing Industries Limited Company and about Mr. S.Rajan Expedite and Mr. A.Pichaikani. According to them, the very basis of the First Information Report is absurd and completely unbelievable. It is also their contention that they do not have any role in allotment of shares of the company and that primary issuance of the shares of the company took place in the year 2005 by means of an Initial Public Offering (IPO). Their specific contention is that even according to the de-facto complainant, they have not received a single penny from him (de-facto complainant) and therefore the de-facto complainant can only proceed against the said Rajan in whose account he had allegedly transferred a sum of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- and the First Information Report in Crime No. 06/w2012 is liable to be quashed as regards the petitioners.