GOPAL RAWAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These both the cases are taken together as they arise from the same complaint case and involve common questions of law.

(2.) Both the applications have been brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) for quashing the proceedings of the complaint case No. 7188/05, under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120-B IPC, P.S. Pheelkhana, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-V, Kanpur Nagar. In Crl. Misc. Application No. 3397 of 2006 it is said that Sri Gopal Rawat, who has been arraigned as accused No. 12 (in short A-12) is a practicing Chartered Accountant, providing professional services in the name of "G. Rawat & Co., Chartered Accountants" and he is also standing member of the Institute of Accounting for the last about 12 years. The area of his professional services is limited to accounting, auditing, income tax/sales tax matters/ analysis of financial/annual reports, dealing with the Registrar of Companies in India. He has falsely been involved in this case and without any substance the cognizance of the offences was taken by the learned Magistrate. It is said that the contents of FIR do not reveal the involvement of the accused (A-12) in the alleged offences. He is sought to be made vicariously liable for the offences of which the principal accused is the company "M/s Wellbred Asset Management (Bahama) Ltd." (A-1), having its office at Suite 101, Saffrey Square Office, Bank Lane, Nassau (Bahamas) though he had no role to play in relation to the alleged incriminating act.

(3.) In Crl. Misc. Application No. 8056 of 2005 it is contended that the applicants (A-9 and A-10) are the management counselors and facilitators. They and their Company 'IFCM Counsellors Private Limited (A-11)' have nothing to do with any business agreement between the parties or that any of the monitory transactions. They charge their professional fees for providing services to their clients. M/s J.K. Synthetic Ltd. (the complainant firm) became financially week and was in dire need of the funds. They engaged the applicants (A-9 and A-10) as counselors and facilitators for managing funds. An agreement to that effect was also executed in between them on 23.5.2000. The accused (A-9 to A-11) also charged fees for rendering the services to the complainant company. The complainant company developed close relations with accused (A-1) and offered 20000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each at par. Even time and again the accused (A-9 to A-11) were giving caution to the complainant company that due diligence was to be adopted before making any financial commitment to funding institution. Even it was also counseled to them that M/s B.L. Securities Ltd. was not a fit company to enter in the business with it. Instead of all such warnings Sri Sarogi, the representative of the complainant company continued to keep dealing with Mr. Naresh Rajya, who has been shown as accused No. 6 in the complaint (now referred as A-6). There was no occasion for the accused applicants to have played fraud with the complainant company.