Theaccused no. 4 i.e. Energo Masch Power Engineering & Consulting Pvt. Ltd. isanother Company.The accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 are its Directors.9 is the Manager of M/s Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (inshort 'IREDA') a financing agency and is brother-in-law of A5 and A6, andaccused No. 10 is a private person, namely Mrs. Sudha Ramani who is said tohave been given a fictitious authorization in respect of a Bank account bya resolution of the company.In brief, it was alleged that the accused entered into acriminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and the Company.These Criminal Appeals are preferred by the complainant againstthe Judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabadby which the High Court has in exercise of powers under Section 482 of theCode of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) quashed the proceedings in CCNo.37 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for EconomicOffences at Hyderabad insofar as the accused Nos. A4, A5, A6, A9 and A10are concerned.The complainant i.e. the appellant herein lodged a privatecomplaint in his capacity as a Promoter Director of Sri Satyanarayana PowerPrivate Ltd. - a company incorporated to generate biomass based powerproject in the District of Warangal in the State of Andhra Pradesh(hereinafter referred to as the 'Company').The complaint was filed inrespect of the offences allegedly committed under Section 628 of theCompanies Act, 1956 (in short the 'Companies Act') and Sections 120B and420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC').This complaint wasfiled in the Court of Special Judge for Economic Offences at Hyderabad.The accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are Directors of the Company.Further,accused A1 to A3 made false declaration in regard to record maintainedunder the provisions of the Companies Act, and filed a false declarationpurporting to be an extract of Board Resolution of the Company beforeAndhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai in order to open a bank account.According to the complainant the signatory to the Board Resolution was noteven a Director in the Company on the date the bank account was opened.Aseries of events alleged in the complaint show how the complainant wasinduced to invest in the Company by acquiring land for the Company at acost of Rs. 20 lakhs and make payment for the front end fee to IREDA whichhad in collusion with the other accused sanctioned the financial assistanceto the Company to the extent of Rs. 11.50 crores subject to the conditionthat the promoters should invest Rs. 4.98 crores as their contributiontowards the total project cost of Rs. 16.48 crores.Though Rs. 145 lakhsfrom the first installment of loan and Rs. 92 lakhs from the secondinstallment of loan were paid to the A4 Company only a nominal amount ofRs. 30 lakhs was used for work and the rest was swindled.As a part ofthese transactions the complainant alleged that A1 to A3 had made a falsedeclaration as records in a purported Board Resolution of the Company inorder to open a bank account and falsely authorised A10 and thereby made afalse declaration amounting to an offence under Section 628 of theCompanies Act. Thus, A10 was falsely authorized to operate the bankaccount.It will thus be seen from the above that according to thecomplainant the transactions of all the accused persons in conspiracy witheach other amounted to offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC andSection 628 of the Companies Act.However, without giving any special reasons as regards accused Nos. A9 andA10 the High Court quashed the taking of cognizance.It may berecalled that the allegation as regards Section 628[2] of the Companies Actis said to have been committed by the accused A1 to A3 by making a falsedeclaration with regard to the record that is maintained in accordance withSection 193 of the Companies Act by filing an extract of the Boardresolution of the company before the Andhra Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennaiin order to open a bank account 'the said Board resolution being a falsedeclaration,' since a bank account in the said bank was already opened evenbefore A1 had obtained consent of the complainant to open the said accountand further since the said Board resolution is signed by Hari Sesha Reddy -A3 who was not even a Director in the company as on the date of the openingof the bank account.The offence alleged against A10 was that she haddrawn huge amounts through self cheques in the capacity of the authorizedsignatory of the company.It is surprising to see that the High Court hasquashed the complaint against the accused persons on the ground of legaldefects though no allegation containing such defects were made against thesaid accused persons.As can be seen from the complaint the allegations are that theaccused conspired with each other to cheat the complainant and a series oftransactions gave rise to offence under Section 120B read with Section 420of the Indian Penal Code as also Section 628 of the Companies Act. It is,therefore, clear that if the Special Court has jurisdiction to try offencesunder both the aforesaid Acts then the trial can certainly continue inrespect of the offences which do not require the complainant to belong tothe categories specified under Section 621 of the Companies Act. Thus thetrial could certainly continue against those accused under the IPC.The High Court completely overlooked the fact that thecomplaint made allegations against the accused A4, A5, A6, A9 and A10 onlyin respect of Section 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code and there was noreason in law to quash a complaint against them on the ground that theywere immune from prosecution under Section 628 of the Companies Act byvirtue of Section 621 of that Act.Date : 26/03/2015 These appeals were called on for hearing today.Suresh Babu, Adv.Mr. Ravi Kumar Tomar,AOR Mr. V.Senthil Kumar, Adv.Mr. K. Muthu, Adv.Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,Adv.Chawla) (Renu Diwan) Court Master Court MasterITEM NO.1D COURT NO.4 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSCriminal Appeal No(s).516-518/2010S. SATYANARAYANA Appellant(s) VERSUSENERGO MASCH POWER ENGG.&CONST.P.L.&ORS.Respondent(s)[HEARD BY HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND HON'BLE S.A.BOBDE, JJ.]Date : 26/03/2015 These appeals were called on for judgment today.For Appellant(s) Mr. Vivek Singh for Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh,AORFor Respondent(s)Mr.Ravi Kumar Tomar,AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy,AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy,Adv.(NP) Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde pronounced the judgment of theBench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and His Lordship.

Cited provisions: Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code