IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 10589 of 2005 BETWEEN: M/s. Vijetha Agro Forms (India) Ltd., D.K.M. Gupta, S/o. Narayana Gupta, R/o. Krishna Nagar, Guntur, Guntur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Rep by the Principal Secretary, Home Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director General of Police, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 The Director, Criminal Investigation Department, A.P., Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to May be pleased to issue writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring the action of the sub- ordinate police officers of the 1st and 2nd respondents in entertaining and registering the complaints at the behest of the individual promoters against the petitioner as well as other directors of the M/s. Vijetha Agro Forms (India) Ltd., Guntur as illegal, void, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India or alternatively direct the 3rd respondent to receive and investigation any complaint with respect to the aforesaid complaint and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Mr. D.K.M. Gupta, Chairman and Managing Director of the petitioner – company i.e. M/s. Vijetha Agro Forms (India) Limited, seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the subordinate Police Officers of the respondents 1 and 2 in entertaining and registering the complaints at the behest of the individual promoters against him as well as other Directors of the petitioner – company as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the Director, Criminal Investigation Department – third respondent to receive and investigate any complaint with respect to the aforesaid complaint. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company submits that the petitioner- company was incorporated under the Companies Act and the company received investments from different intending promoters to achieve the object of the company and in that connection, the company appointed marketing members to propagate, collect and receive investments from the interested and intending members. Accordingly, the company received the investments to an extent of Rs.43,25,00,000/- by the time the company was seized by the CID on 20.09.2002. He further submits that the agreement between the company and the promoters at the time of investment by the promoters is that the company would invest the same in purchasing lands, developing the lands and raising plantation and the promoters are entitled to the share in the profits out of such development. Therefore, the promoters are not the distributors and on the complaints made by the promoters the cases cannot be registered. However, on the complaints made by the various individual depositors different cases have been registered at different police stations and in fact, comprehensive investigation has been made by the Inspector of Police, CID, Guntur, in connection with Cr.No.22 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code of the CID Police Station, Hyderabad. After thorough investigation, a charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.452 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. As the said investigation covers all the deposits there is no need or necessity to register individual cases by various Station House Officers. Therefore, the action of the respondents in registering cases based on the various complaints is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he seeks a Writ of Mandamus to entrust the investigation to be made by one competent authority. 3. Counter has been filed stating that on the complaint made by one Mr. Shaik Pasha, resident of Mahaboobnagar stating that he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 18.04.1998, Rs.5,000/- on 20.04.1998, Rs.5,000/- on 25.04.1998 and Rs.5,000/- on 30.05.1998 on his own name and Rs.10,000/- on 16.05.1998 in the name of his wife for a period of 3 ½ years and received bonds from the petitioner-company. After the date of maturity on presentation of the bonds for payment, the amounts were not paid and accordingly based on the said complaint a case in Cr.No.22 of 2002 was registered. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in Cr.No.22 of 2002. It is stated that similar complaints have been filed by several other depositors basing on which various crimes have been registered against the accused in various police stations in the State of AP and the same are as follows: 1) Cr.No.69/02, Kothapet L&O PS (Charge Sheet filed in the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur on 15.05.2004 vide C.C.No.547/2004); 2) Cr.No.22/02, CID PS Hyderabad (Charge Sheet filed in the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur on 30.01.2004 vide C.C.No.452/2004); 3) Cr.No.141/02 of Vizianagaram I Town PS (Charge Sheet filed in the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur); 4) Cr.No.2/02 of Mahaboobnagar PS (Final Report filed in the Court of VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur); 5) Cr.No.123/03 of Kadapa I Town PS (Charge Sheet filed in the AMM Court of Kadapa vide C.C.No.1/2005); 6) Cr.No.89/01 of Halia PS (Charge Sheet filed in the AMM Court of Miryalaguda); 7) Cr.No.56/02 of Srikakulam I Town PS; 8) Cr.No.70/02 of Srikakulam PS. 4. I am of the opinion that when individual and different complaints have been filed, the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates registration of separate cases and investigation of the same. The persons, who have filed the complaint, date of receipt of the deposits and handing over the bonds in each case is different and therefore, for different complaints, different crime numbers are liable to be registered and proceed against the accused and other concerned. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one comprehensive investigation satisfies the requirement of law cannot be accepted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the registration of various crimes on the complaints by various complainants cannot be find fault with. However, without making the so-called complainants party to the writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in the writ petition. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 26, 2008 DSK