IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12318 & 13209 of 2010 Crl.P.No.12318/2010 Between: Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Rep.by Mr.Arun Sawhney, Managing Director And 4 others ..... PETITIONERS/A1, A3, A5, A13 & A14 And The State of A.P. through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and 10 others .....RESPONDENTS Crl.P.No.13209/2010 Between: ICICI Securities Private Limited, Rep.by Mr.Thomas Vincent, Assistant Vice President ..... PETITIONER/A9 And The State of A.P. through P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad rep.by its Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.12318 & 13209 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: A1, A3, A5, A13 and A14 in Cr.No.286/2010 on the file of P.S. Central Crime Station, Hyderabad filed Crl.P.12318/2010, and A9 in the same crime filed Crl.P.13209/2010 seeking to quash the proceedings in the said crime. The petitioners/A1, A3, A5, A13, A14 & A9 along with others have been charged for the offences punishable under Secs.120-B, 406 and 409 of IPC. Since both the criminal petitions arise out of the same crime, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. Heard both sides. The 2nd respondent herein has filed a private complaint before the Court of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein and others for the offences punishable under Sec.120-B, 406 and 409 of IPC. The learned Magistrate has referred the complaint to P.S.Banjara Hills for investigation under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. The P.S.Banjara Hills registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1070/2010 and later transferred the said crime to Central Crime Station, Hyderabad for investigation. The Central Crime Station on receipt of the said crime, has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.286/2010 and taken up investigation. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in Crl.P.12318/2010 submits that A1 and the complainant were entered into an agreement on 31.01.2007 whereby and whereunder the complainant agreed to develop and marketing the drug for cancer; that on 03.10.2007 the complainant and A1 entered into a Share Purchase Agreement, wherein certain conditions were incorporated, and as per the said conditions certain shares to be locked in and other shares not to be sold without offering them to A1, and it is only on its refusal the said shares should be sold in open market; that no single investor could own more than 5% of the shareholding; that no individual shareholder will have a right to sell more than one lakh shares in a year; that the complainant is alleged to have violated the said conditions, therefore, a Company Application was filed; that while adjudicating the Company Application, the Company Law Board, Chennai confirmed the existence of such agreement between the parties and conditions thereunder and as such, the complainant was restrained by its order from selling away his shares in open market in contravention of the terms of the Share Purchase Agreement; that the said orders of the Company Law Board, Chennai were confirmed by this Court subsequently in Company Application No.633/2010 in Company Appeal No.13/2010; however, the complainant, in violation of the restraint orders of the Company Law Board, tried to dispose of his shareholdings; that on coming to know of the same, A1 filed a contempt application before the Company Law Board, Chennai; that the present crime is registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, stating that filing of a contempt application before the Company Law Board, Chennai, amounts to an offence punishable under Secs.406, 409 and 120-B of IPC; that there are other matters, civil and criminal in nature, pending between the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant submits that the petitioners herein have failed to make out any prima facie case for quashing the proceedings of the above said crime. He further contends that A6 and A9 were only entitled to keep the personal documents of the de facto complainant in their custody/possession, and they were not supposed to divulge the same to anyone else; but A6 and A9 intentionally divulged the said information to the other accused and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sec.406, 409 and 120-B of IPC. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the stay granted by this Court, the investigation is pending. Having heard the learned counsel of both sides, and having perused the material available on record, this Court is of the view that since there are disputes existing between the parties and company matters are pending in that regard before the Company Law Board as well as before this Court, it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in the aforesaid crime against the petitioners herein by invoking the inherent powers under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, both these Criminal Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions filed in both these Criminal Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Dated: 03.11.2011 Dsr