THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2225 of 2005 Dated:15th December, 2010 Between: M/s.Durga LiquorIndia Private Limited rep. by its authorized person- cumn-Director Sri Niranjan Lal Agarwal, factory at Davuluru Village,Kamkipadu Mandal, Krishna District. ..... Petitioner AND 1. Manne Ramaiah & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2225 of 2010 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 24.11.2010 passed on the complaint filed by the revision petitioner under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the complainant are: Manne Ramaiah commenced the business under the name and style of M/s.Durga Wine Industries and later converted into limited company styled it as M/s.Durga Liquor India Private Limited in the year 2001 and continued the business in the same premises at Duvvuluru village. A1 Manne Ramaiah, A2 Manne Subhadra, A3 Manne Krishna Chaitanya, A4 Manne Giridhara Prasad were the Board of Directors of the Company. In the year 2004 Niranjan Lal Agarwal entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 15.04.2004 with M/s.Durga Liquor India Private Limited of which A1 was the Managing Director agreeing to purchase shares of the company as on 31.03.2005 The entire form and composition of its Board of Directors, Share-holders has undergone a complete transformation. As a consequence of it, Niranjan Lal Agarwal became the Managing Director of the company. His wife Smt.Uma Devi Agarwal, his son Ashish Agarwal and some others have been absorbed as new directors on the Board. A1 to A6 having transferred their shares for consideration fabricated resolutions dated 15.4.2008 and 24.08.2010 and submitted Form 18 and Form 23 returns for the years 2004 and 2005. A7 has sent the forged resolutions to the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad. Therefore, A1 to A7 are punishable for the offences under Sections 120-B, 467, 423, 471 r/w.34 IPC. For better understanding of the grievance of the complainant, I deem it appropriate to refer paras.13 to 22 of the complaint, which read as hereunder: “13. It is respectfully submitted that accused No.4 with a dishonest intention signed the above verification in both forms 18 and 23 falsely claiming to be a Director of the complainant company (M/s.Durga Liquor India Private Limited). Whereas, accused No.7 Nutanapathi Nagendra Naidu filed the same before the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad knowing fully well that all the entries made by him in the above forms 18 & 23 including the verification are rank forgeries. 14. The act of the accused Nos.4 and 7 in filing the returns under form 20-B as if they are the Annual Returns of the complainant company claiming that they are authorized to file before the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad, and knowing fully well that they are false in many material particulars is an offence punishable under Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 and the act of accused 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 in facilitating A4 and A7 for forging them and enabling them to file them before the said authority is also an offence under Section 628 of Companies Act, 1956. 15. The acts of accused Nos.1 to 6 in agreeing to forge the resolutions dt.15.04.2008 and 24.08.2010 with a criminal intent and with a view to claim themselves to be the Directors of M/s.Durga Liquor India Private Limited (complainant-company) and to do the subsequent acts with the full knowledge and co-operation of accused No.7 is an act of Criminal Conspiracy punishable under Section 120- B IPC. 16. The complainant-company submits that the accused 1 to 7 with a dishonest intention to have wrongful gain for themselves and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant-company and its Board of Directors having forged the concerned resolutions, forging Form 18 and 23 besides forged and fabricated annual returns for the years 2004 and 2005 under separate two form 20-B as annexure and also number of documents as attachments, intentionally using them as genuine, knowing them to be false and forged. This act of A4 and A7 is punishable under Section 471 IPC and the act of A1 to A3 and A5 and A6 in facilitating the forgery of the above documents for the purpose of using them as genuine knowing them to be false and forged is an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC read with 34 IPC. 17. The alleged resolution Dt.24.08.2010 in which it is falsely claimed that by way of resolution Mr.Ashish Agarwal, Niranjan Lal Agarwal and Uma Devi Agarwal were removed as Directors of the complainant-company, is a forged document prepared with a dishonest intention to create it as valuable security within the meaning of Sec.30 of IPC. By virtue of it the accused Nos.1 to 6 with the help of accused No.7 allegedly took the complainant- company into their management, for which there was absolutely no legal or any manner of right to them. The act of preparing a forged and false resolution which creates some rights unlawfully to A1 to A6 is an act of forging a valuable security punishable under Section 467 IPC. 18.The very act of forging the resolution Dt.15.04.2008 and 24.08.2010 are acts punishable under Section 465 IPC since the accused forged the said resolutions knowing fully well that they do not have any rights in the complainant-company i.e., M/s.Durga Liquor India Private Limited. 19. The act of all the accused in executing a document with a dishonest intention to have wrongful gain themselves in the manner depicted in the resolutions dt.15.04.2008 and 24.08.2010 which are also forged are punishable under Section 423 IPC. 20 The authorized person on behalf of the complainant-company: Sri Niranjan Lal Agarwal filed a complaint under form No.61 before the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad on 26.10.2010 immediately on coming to know of the fraud, forgeries committed in pursuance of their Criminal Conspiracy by accused herein. But, the Registrar of Companies without taking any action the accused herein simply directed the complainant-company to seek its redressal of the grievances before the competent Court of Law orally saying that they are already over burdened and under staffed to do their regular work. 21. The accused Nos.1 to 4 started making a propaganda in and around Davvuluru village and also at Viajaywada that they are in the management of the Complainant-Company, and the said propaganda is malicious, willful and made to create false impressions in the mind of the general public. 22. The complainant-company submits that as per Section 179 of Cr.P.C. it has got the right to file the complaint before this Hon’ble Court because the consequences of the above said forged resolutions and criminal conspiracy resulted in loss of face to the complainant-company at Davuluru village of Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh and hence this Hon’ble Court has got jurisdiction to try the complaint. Hence, the complaint.” 3. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate on considering the material placed on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the petitioner-complainant came to the conclusion that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the 1 Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Vijayawada and thereby, proceeded to return the complaint, by order dated 24.11.2010. The order passed by the learned Magistrate reads as hereunder:- “ Complainant is present. Heard the complainant’s counsel. Perused the material on record. As per the averments in the complaint, the alleged forged documents were submitted to the Registrar of the Companies at Hyderabad. Admittedly the Head Office of the company is located at Hyderabad. It shows that entire business transactions and administrative activity are dealt from the Head office located at Hyderabad. Therefore, merely because the manufacturing unit is located at Davuluru village of Kankipadu Mandal, which is within this Court’s jurisdiction, how this Court has got jurisdiction. As per complaint there is no clear averments that there is finding by the competent authority that the accused filed false and fabricated documents. Therefore, how this complaint is maintainable. Hence, the complaint is returned”. Hence, this revision by the complainant. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record as well as the order impugned in the revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the manufacturing unit of the company is situated at Davuuru village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District and as the copies of resolutions in dispute have been sent to the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad by way of e-filing from Vijayawada, the Courts at Vijayawada have jurisdiction to take the complaint on file. Learned counsel refers para 12(a) of the complaint in support of his contention, which reads as hereunder:- “ The complainant-company submits that along with false returns the accused Nos.1 to 7 conspired to file a false declaration in the form No.18 filed on 31-08-2010 with SRN No.A92447689 by way of e-filing and it was filed by accused No.4 through accused No.7 as per the alleged authorization which is false, fake and forged. It is respectfully submitted that the verification submitted by accused No.4 with the active planning and co-operation of A-1 to A-3, A.5 to A7 to achieve their illegal goals. The following verification is submitted in form No.18 filed before the Registrar of Companies, Hyderabad in the circumstances submitted above and the extract of the verification is as follows: xx xxxx xxx” 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The complaint is filed on the ground that two resolutions dated 15.4.2008 and 24.8.2010 have been fabricated. These two resolutions are passed at the registered office of the company situated at 9/165, Nabikot, Chemmumlyapet, Kadapa. It is contended by the learned counsel that the above said resolutions reflects the functioning of the company at Davuluru village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District, A.P., and therefore, the Courts situated at Vijayawada have got jurisdiction. 7. Chapter XIII deals with jurisdiction of the criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Sections 177 to 189 Cr.P.C are covered by Chapter XIII. Under Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Under Section 179 Cr.P.C., when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. 8. In the complaint except mentioning Section 179 Cr.P.C, it has not been stated what are the consequences followed by the resolutions and what are the consequences which occurred within the jurisdiction of the I Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. In the absence of such details, the trial Court is justified in returning the complaint. The petitioner is at liberty to represent the complaint within two weeks, if so advised detailing the consequences of the two disputed resolutions, which have arisen within the jurisdiction of I Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vijayawada. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to represent the complaint giving details as indicated above. On such representation, the learned I Metropolitan Magistrate has to consider the same and rehear the jurisdictional issue and pass orders afresh. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.15-04-2010 CS/RAR THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.2225 of 2005 Dated:15th December, 2010