The High Court · 2025

Order

Petitioner - Accuseci No.2 in C.C. fl, .2i of 2023 (prime No. 1,99 of 2O7'i o[ Cybercrimcs l) 'lice Station, Hyderabad) (old C-C.No. I oi .10i6) on thc llL: of [hi: lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrz:ie, Cyberabad zrl iukatpally for the offences under Sections 12oil, 406, 42O, 46,9 +7 1, 201 rcad

with Section 101 IPC. and Sections 35, 66(c)(d), r 2 (81,74 ot lT Act states that initially, her naine was not arraS:d in the FIR (registered based on thc courl'.,laint of her ' rother datcd 26.09.2014\. In the said con-rplaint, the alleq rlion is I'hat Accused No. t had appiied for digital signal tL: e u'ith TATA t Consultancv Services in the name of the 2"d respondent compiainant and obtained his ciigital signature by playing fraud and forgcn' and rhereafter. filed Form 32 showing the rcconstitution of Board of DirecLors and aliotment of shares.

1.1- It is statcd, as pcr charge sheet dated 02.0I.2006, ail the allegations are directed against Accused No. 1 and in order Lo falselv implicate petitic,ner herein, it is alleged that she accompanie d Accused No. I to the ofllce of Accused No.3 and cxcepi thc balcl and vague irilcgation, there is no specihc overt act directly involving her rn the allegation relating to the act of committing forgcry of thc signature of L.W. 1 on the Application lor obtaining digital signature certihcate. Other allegation against petitioner is that she had accessed along with Accusccl No.I thc company e m:-il. Except stating that, it is not stated as to how shc would together u,ith Accused No.1 opened e mail-

7.2. It is also stated, pcritioner along with Accused No.1 lrLed Criminal Petition No. 6247 of 2016 for quashing C.C.No. 1 oi 2016 and the said Petition was dismissed. Theteafter, in 2019, poii9g hlcd Crl.M.P.No. i64 of 2019 in C.C.No. I of 2016 seeking permission to undertake further investigation in the light of the alleged nerl. evdience. After obtaining permission n J uide order dated 22.O3.2019, a supplementary chz rge sheet rvas filed by the police or 17.O8.2O)0. A perusal of t[ : sirid charge sheel shorvs that statement o[ LW; rvas again re,c c rdccl which is nothing but reinvestigation but not further inve rUg.rtion. in view of the supplementary charge sheet liled by t :re police an<l consequent discharge of Accused No.4 by the Cr urt, the case against petitioner is liabie to bc quashed lor th: r-ea sons that the only allegation against petitioner is that she v as present at the time of submitting the Applicatron hard copy :r r sta ted abor.e to Accused No.4. Once Accused N.4 is discharged rn tlie ground that she has not violated any rules and guidelr les regarding verihcation of the Application and genuir-r: ress of thc Application, the role of petirioner does not have rny relevance and merely because she is thc u.ifc of Accused No 1, she cannot be treated to be a part of alleged conspiracy. It is, urther stated petitioner and her husband (A1) tiied Crl.M.P.No. ( 78 <tf 2022 in C.C.No. 21 of 2023 but the saicl Application u.a:; clismissed on the ground that the point or grounds on whicl accused are sought to be discharged are all questions of fact rnd law to be considered only during the trial and they can ail tate all those grounds in the final hearing of the case after trial is concluded. : ; 1 ) r I \ ,| ! I 4 In those circumstances, petitioncr prays this Court to quash C.C.No.27 of 2023.

2. Hearcl Sri Ch. Sirrar.ani. learned counsel for petitioncr as u,cll as iearneci f)ttblic Prosecutor on behalf of rcspondents.

3. It is bornc out bv rccord that earlier petitioner and her husband fAccused No. 1) filcd Criminal Petition No. 6247 of 2016 to quash C.C.No- I ol 2Oi6 on the hle of the XVI Metropolitan Magistratc. Kr.rlczii pally at Miyapur, Cyberabad. The said Petition w-as f-ilcd on r-i'rc ground that allegations made in the complaint on their facc value would not constitute offences punishable under Scciions 1208, 406, 42O, 468, 471, 2O1 rcad u,ilh Section 1O9 of IPC and Sections 35, 66(C&D), 72,(81,74 of IT Act; on the gror-lr-rd aione, proceedings in C.C.No. I of 2026 are litrble to be quashed. It is further urged that petitioners came to knou. that, orr 23.1l.2Ol3, complainant and his brother lilecl C.P.No. 93 oi 2013 on the file of the Company Law Board, Chcnnai undcr Sections 397, 398 read with Sections 40i and 4O3 of the Cornpanies Act, 1956 alleging that petitioners illegally and unlarvfully took control over the company from them, hence, the criminal proceedings in c.c No. I oi 2O 16 cannot s.it1,.,ltar-:ieously be prosecuted and \ 5 the dispute is totally within the purwiew o[ thr l]onrpany Lalr Board and when thc matter is seized of bv ttrt ltonrpany Lau: Board, contii'ruation ol- proceediligs beforc thi: r.ri rurr:rl Court is nothing but abuse o[ proccss of lau,. This Couri i r :rn clabrtraie order turncd clou,n the contention of petitioners lLilt Lhere was no material against them fcrr the oifence allegeci :rr tinsr them. [r rvas also held that pendency of company p< trrions before Company Laq, Board in C.P.No. 93 of 2013 arrrl C.p.No. 73 of 20 15 filed by the de facto complainar.rt r r r rl petitioners respectively would not come in the wa], to pr r,.eccl against petitioners irr criminal Court sirrce offences allcq I lr\' c.ommitted by them are triable by the criminal Court and th( Jompany Lau Board has nothing to do with the same.

4. Now the grievance of petitioner s lha t after clismissal of the above Criminal petition, po)ice filcd supplementary charge sheet. Under the guise ol iiing the said charge sheel, the statement of LW5 lvas again rcc i rdecl and it ts nothing but reinvestigation but not further investre rrir_,rr.

5. From a perusal of the material ou r.r:r r r.d, ir is clear that N.Rajaram Reddy (complainant) and his brother incorporated a private limited company undcr rl t. neLme and style of Sridhanada Laboratories private Limr t,, I under the \ -"' i 5 provisions of the Companies Act" 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturc of pharmaccutical bulk drugs and d.lrg intermcdiates and has its manuldi:turing unit at I.D.A.Bollaram. Accused No. 1, whc was an Adrlitlonal Director of the company ceased to be a Director b1' rrirtue of operation of law on

29.09.2072 on which date, the Annual General Meeting of the companlr' was heid. In the si..ici r-r-reeting, complainant and his brothcr did not pass any resoir-liion rc-appointing Accused No.1 as a Director. The Compan.v informed the Registrar of Companies about peritioner l.lo.I ceasing to be a Director by filing necessary Form - 32, which was uploaded on 25.11.2012. However, Accused No. 1 started fabricating . and forging docun'ients with a vieu. to grab and usurp lhe company's property for his personal gain. He therefore, applied for digital signature with Tata Consultai'icv Services and obtained the complainant's digital signature by f12r6 and forgery and as per the records of ROC, the Digital Signature Serial No.52252trD58C92572674OE dated 05.03.2013. He used complainant's name by forging signature on the application form and uploaded the returns,rdccume nts on to lhe site of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Blr these series of fraudulent acts, Accused Nos. 1 and Accused No.2 (wife of Accused No. 1 and ,l 7 l\ sister of complainant) and others usurped the cc t trol over [he company. It is pertinent to note that it is complarir ant's brothcr rvho has the digital signaturc of the comparLr and u,ho is authorized bv the Board of Directors to uil ( erd returns/ resoiutions/ documents of the company Lo th ( site of the Ministry of Corporale Affairs. Having obtaincd clir tal signature certificate in complainant's name, Accused No. l proceecleci to fabricate minutes of the meetings of the Board rr Directors ol the company to show as if a meeting of Board of tt :ectors of the company u,as held on O 1.10.2O 12 and as if hirr ,;c1f, Accused No.2 and others were appointed as Additio:r lL Drrectors. Pursuant to labricated minutes, he uploaded F : -m No.32 as also the alleged minutes of the meeting of the Boar i oi Directors purportedly held on O1.1O.2012. A perusal of ttrt said minutes clearly shou,s that the signature of complainar,' was forged- Accused No.l had also filed extract of the rri rutes of the meeting allegedly held on OL.1O.2O),2 to show as .1'resolutions n'ere passed inducting accused as Additional l irectors. The fabricated nature of Form No.32 and alleged nr nutes of the purported Board Meeting can be established fronr the fact that the Board of Directors filed Form No.32 on 25.11 '. 012 u,ith the I 8 Registrar of Companies informing about vacation of office by petitioncr No.1 b1. oper-ation oI liru'. tr. The statement oi l, W.2 Sri N. Raghu Ram Reddy rvho is brothcr of complainant sltows that himself or his brother never convened any such board mectings wherein Accused No.1 andhis wifc were induct ed as the Managing Director and the Exccutive Director respectivcii ofi the company. It is cleasrl that Accused 1 and 2 and Srinivasa Rao Marikanti hatched a conspiracv to u,rest control of tiic c<;mpany from them and with that vicw, had started fabricating rlocuments. 7 . Further, in Criminal Pelition No. 6247 of 2O16 filed by petitioners to quash the proc:r:cdings in C.C.No- 1 of 2016 on the file cf the XVI Metropclitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Mil,apur, this Court observed thar lurther investigation revealed that petitioners captured the r,.raj or shares in the company by illegal alkrtment and taken over tire entire management; getting such allotrnent based on forged documents, creating false rcsoh-rtions r.r,ith the help of Cornperny Secretary and Chartered Accountant for their unlawful gain i.e. allotment of 4O,00,OOO sharcs ir-r the name of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and their children, on its face value would constitute offences punishable under tions 420, 468, 471 and 20I IPC. Since they created ,)& \ I documents b] illegal means rvith a dishone; intention. Hr>u'ever, the dishonest intentiotl is a qucstion ot' -,sputed lacL and rvhen thcrc is an allegalior) in thc charq,t shcct th:ti p(r t.itioners ivi tl-r dishonest intcrl,ontion committe I those acls itst:lf is sufficient ground to proccerJ against petitior:( rs.

8. Having considered thc above, this Cor rt is of tfie opinion that 1he specific alleg;rtions against petiti rncrs pnnrrr facie atLracL the rngredients of rlie offences allcgecl. I lainst therl Truth or othr:nvise ol the allcgations u.ould o n come r)rrt during the course of trial, thcrefrtre, this is no[ : fit case Lo exercise inheren[ powers under Section 482 Cr.P, ). ro quasl.r the proceedings, at this stage.

9. In this connection, it is apt to note sonr judgments o[-the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Neeharika In-F astntcture Priuate Limited o. State oJ Maharashtral, the Sr 1 reme Courr relying on its previous decisrons has laid down )e lollorving factors to be considerecl while exercising the prt vers undcr Section 482 oi the Cr.P.C. : ".... iv) The power o[ quashir.rg shoutd be exercised spr rilg1l rvith circumspectioD, in the rarest o[ rare cases'. (The rarest (,] rare cases standarcl in its application for quashir.rg under Section 482 (] .p C. is not ' (202r ) t9 scc,lol \ \_ i u l0 to be confused rvith the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalt_v, as explained previously by this Court); \,) While examining an FIRIcornplaint, quashing of which is sought, the coLlrL cannot embark upon an enquiry as to ttre reliabilit-v or genuireness or othen.ise of the aliegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Ciiminal proceedings ought nci to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Ouashing of a complaint/ FIR should be an exception and a rarit5r than an ordinaq, rule: viii) Orlinarili., the courts arr: ban:red from usurping the jurlsdiction oI the polrce, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherelt powcr of the court is, however, recognised to securc the ends of:ustice or prevent the above process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. ix) The functions of the judiciary and the poiice are complementary, not overiapping; x) Save in exceptional cases \rrhere non-interference rvould result in miscarriage of justice. the Court and the judicial process should not interfere a t the stage oi investigation of offences. xi) Extraordinar.v and rnherent porvers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; xii) Thc ilrst infoi-mation report is rot an encyclopedia which must disclosc ail facts and details relatiag to the offence reported. Therefore, $'hen tire investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not _ go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR- Police must be permitted \ $ complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the II conclusion based on haz]' facts thaf the complaint/ FIR rk r s not deserve to be investigated or that it amouots to abuse of process c ' lau . During or after invesligation, if the investigating ofhcer hnds [. I there is no substance in the application made bi, rhe complainant, rl ( i nvcstigating olficer ma1. file an appropriate rcport/sumrnary beftrr:: the lcarned Magistrate rvhich may be considcred b,v lhe learne<l 'lagistrate in accordance with the knorvn procedure; xiii) The power under Section zi82 Llr.P.C. is very nide, bur onferment of $,ide power requires th(i court to l)e cautious. It casts a 1 oncrous art<1 more diligent dury on the court; xiv) However, aL the same time, the court, if it thinks alr, regard being had to the parameters of quashirre, and the seli restrai l imlxrsed by larv, more particularly the paramctcrs laid down by rhir; Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra) has rt- : juristLiction to quash lhe FIR/complaint xv) When a pra]'er for quashing the l.-lR is made by the a1| ged accuserl, the court when it exercises the po\\.er under Section 48,1 Cr.P. C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FII disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required ( consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable ofle .r ie or not aJld the court has to permit the investigaiing agency/police b Lr \ estigatc the allegations in the FIR." iO. Srmilarly, in Skodtt Auto Volkstt dgen In.dio Prluate Limited a. The Stdte af Attur Pradesh2 thc Hon'ble Apex Court categorically held that the High Courts n exercise o[ '1zozr; s scc us: -l ) its inhcrcnI powers under Secl iolr 482 of Cr.P.C has to quash the procct'clings in criminal cases in rarest of rare cases r.r,i lh rxtrelre c:rution. I 1 . In thc iight of the tr lrove and also in the light of the sr:tlled l:ru', the Crirninal Petitir>n is ciismissed. 1,2. Consequently, rniscellaneous Applications, if any shzrll stand c: losecl. SD/ AS - T.SRINIVASAREDDY SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l.ThelXAdditionalMetropolitanMagistrate,cyberabadatKukatpally 2. The Station Uouse Onicer]Cll"' Cii'" Police-station' Cyberabad 3. Two CCs to the Public pr.dtll't"'' nign Court for the State of Telangana at ' Hyderabad (OUT) a oir. C-C to 'Sri Chennaboina Shravani' Advocate IOPUC] l 5l. ic iI sii p rl"g"ndra Reddv' Advocate [oPUCl 6. Two CD CoPies Sa/l'SI - Yv -\ $ HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 ORDER CRLP.No.6170 ot 2025 . SrA L) i I JAN 2O2E * PNT ( , c)\, I DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL PETITION ( ur((u1t k,