HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.810 OF 2001 DATE:22-07-2010 BETWEEN General Manager, Castrol India Limited, White House, 91, Walkesh Var Road, Mumbai. …Petitioner AND Dangeti Subrahmanyam & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.810 OF 2001 ORDER: This petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.313 of 1998 pending on the file of IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 406, 471, 420 and 120(b) I.P.C. The first respondent-complainant has not chosen to put up appearance in spite of service of notice. This Court is unable to understand as to why the other accused were impleaded as respondents to this petition. For want of service on the other respondents-accused, the matter has been pending for 9 long years. The complaint allegations disclose that A.1 and A.2 are close relatives of the complainant and his wife-L.W.1, and A.3 is the close associate of A.1 and A.2. A.1 to A.3 conspired among themselves to defraud the complainant and L.W.1 and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and L.W.1 and wrongful gain to themselves. They made a false representation to the complainant that it would be more fetching if the complainant would join in their partnership and contribute share capital and to invest the capital amount in the public issue of Neocure Therapeutics Ltd., Hyderabad. Then A.1 and A.2 induced the complainant and L.W.1 that the shares available with the complainant and L.W.1 can be pledged with A.3 so as to secure loan from A.3. Thus A.1 and A.2 obtained 100 shares out of the 160 shares from the complainant stating that they would pledge them along with their properties with A.3 and secure an amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs so as to invest the same in the public issue in Neocure therapeutics Ltd. A.1 and A.2 entered into an agreement, dated 14.2.1996 with the complainant to that effect and that the original of the said agreement was kept with A.1 and A.2. While so, the complainant and L.W.1 received two letters, dated 31.12.1996 from A.4 company (petitioner herein) intimating that one Kulgit Singh B.Parmar (L.W.2) and Meenakshi K.Parmar (L.W.3) had submitted one transfer deed for transfer of 50 shares and similarly, one Darshak Vinod Shaw (L.W.4) and Anita Darshak Shaw (L.W.5) had submitted one transfer deed for 50 shares respectively, totaling to 100 shares standing in the name of the complainant and L.W.1 and that the signatures of the complainant and L.W.1 on the transfer deeds are differed from the specimen signatures of the complainant and L.W.1 recorded with the company of A.4-petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant contacted A.1 and A.2 and requested them to show the accounts to know whether they had invested any money in the public issue and that whether they had cleared off the loan obtained from A.3 or not, but they did not give any satisfactory reply. When the complainant insisted A.1 and A.2 about the shares, they made a false representation stating that A.4 company had already returned the shares without effecting transfer and that they will settle the matter and return the 100 shares to the complainant, and on such representation, the complainant kept quiet without taking any further action. When the complainant received a dividend warrant, dated 16.6.1997 for Rs.330/- for only 60 shares instead of 160 shares from the company of A.4-petitioner, he addressed a letter to the A.4 company stating that himself and his wife-L.W.1 are holding 160 shares. Then the A.4 company sent a letter, dated 9.7.1997 to the wife of the complainant (L.W.1) stating that the dividend pertaining to 100 shares was kept in abeyance. Thereupon, the complainant and L.W.1 got issued a telegram, dated 9.8.1997 to A.4 company with a request not to effect transfer of 100 shares to anybody as they have not given the transfer deeds or written consent to anybody about their 100 shares. A.4 company gave a reply on 8.9.1997 informing the complainant that the share certificate number 515217 (50 shares) had already been transferred in favour of A.5. The complainant was further informed that the remaining 50 shares bearing certificate No.531869 are still held in the names of the complainant and L.W.1 and informed them to obtain necessary injunction orders from the competent Court restraining it (A.4 company) from transferring those shares. Thus the entire complaint allegations, as extracted above, disclose no role played by the petitioner-A.4 company in cheating the complainant so as to attract the offences as alleged, and whereas, allegations are made only against A.1 to A.3 for the offences alleged. In view of the same, the impugned proceedings launched against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of law and therefore, the same cannot be continued against the petitioner. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed as against the petitioner-company only. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 22, 2010 Tsr.