M K AZAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash the proceedings in Crime No.55 of 2002 of Panjagutta Police Station.

(2.) On 17-1-2002, 2nd respondent lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station alleging that he is the Managing Director of R.D.F. Power Project Limited (for short the Company) having its registered office at 3 18, Amrutha Ville Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, and that petitioners 1 to 3 who have been making false claim as Directors of the company have been pressurizing him to hand over the Management of the company to them had on 3-1-2002 at a bout 4 P.M., came to the company premises with the fourth petitioner who is claiming himself to be the representative of a Malaysian based company, and the fifth petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, and threatened him with dire consequences if he were not to hand over the charge of the company along with the records to them (i.e., petitioners 1 to 3) immediately, and apprehending threat to his life and the property of the company, when he was rushing to the Police Station to lodge a complaint against the petitioners, he had chest pain on the way and rushed to a hospital where he was admitted as inpatient and in the meanwhile petitioners sent out the members of the staff of the company and locked the premises of the company with their lock and so he got filed a suit and obtained orders of status quo but in the meanwhile the First City Co-operative Urban Bank Limited attached the registered office of the company on 4-1-2002 and sealed the premises for the amount due to it from him in his individual capacity and subsequent to his discharge from the hospital he could persuade the Bank officials to open the seals and went into the premises of the company office at about 7.30 P.M., on 16-2-2002 and found the door leading to his room open, and upon entering his room found all his records, books, files and documents belonging to the company with personal files missing and on verification found that his brief case was opened and cash of Rs.3,500.00, his personal cheque book and credit card missing, and that he is under an impression that petitioners 1 to 3 along with petitioners 4 and 5 must have entered the premises of the company during the night of 3-1-2002 and broke open the lock of the room and removed all the books, records and files and his personal belongings with a view to fabricate evidence to further their plan to take over the control of the company by illegal means. The S.H.O. Panjagutta P.S. registered that complaint as crime No.52 of 2001 under Sections 506, 448 and 380 I.P.C., and took up investigation. Petitioners seek that complaint being quashed.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the averments in the complaint do not disclose any offence much less offences under Sections 506, 448 and 380 I.P.C. and that in fact the Board of Directors of the company had on 16-11-2001 appointed petitioners 1 to 3 as additional Directors of the company had authorised the 2nd respondent to file Form No.32 before the Registrar of Companies and that 2nd respondent had filed Form No.32 furnishing information to the Registrar of Companies about the appointment of petitioners 1 to 3 as Directors of the company and so the contention of the 2nd respondent that petitioners 1 to 3 are strangers and are claiming to be the Directors of the company is not and cannot be true. He contended that since the Board of Directors of the company at a meeting held on 29-12-2001 had resolved to terminate the services of the 2nd respondent as Managing Director and appointed the first petitioner as the acting Managing Director till the Board takes a decision with regard to the appointment of a new Managing Director, the contention of that 2nd respondent is the Managing Director of the company is not cannot be true. He also contended that the Board of Directors had on 3-1-2002 resolved to shift the registered office of the company to a premises at Kundanbagh from 8-1-2002. It is his contention that 2nd respondent, with a mala fide intention, had given a false report to the police against the petitioners inventing a story of hospitalization placing strong reliance on Mahavir Prashad Gupta VS. State Of Nct Of Delhi1, Roy V.D. VS. State of Kegala2, G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 3, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Anr., G. Murali Krishna v. Smt. G. Madhavi5, Nandipati Veeriah v. Shaik Darga6, state of haryana vs. Ch.bhajan lal7 and and contended that the F.I.R. registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.