IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGAI..ORE
DATED THIS THE 20"" DAY OF
BEFORE}
THE HONBLE3 MRJUSTICE K.N.K1335H.A'v*;«.r§3.R2?ai/ANA..:u
CRL.P.NO.4893/2006 C/W 4239;..439.é'--&':48'94/~2:0_Qmg:,_7
IN CRL.P.N0.4893/2006: V « 4'
BETWEEN:
Smt. O.V.Vm0dan1ma__W./0 E
O.R.Varada1~aju. Major] ' ' __
R/0 No. }36. Main Road, " .V
Kc-llegal. _ .
IN cR71_..pV.No.'4éa_;V/2_ooé':A " V
Smt. 'a[ar:1i'akshmi..,_'Age"M%;ij~oz%, '
W/0 sr:.0;.R.D--.G'up'ta, '
R/a N0.1';+'2'F8. P'eaée Pafisz Road.
Koflfigai.
.A «:NV}"cz§i..A1é.1Si'o_.4392/2006
Major.
R»/0 No._1 /2.78, Peace Park Road.
Kdllegrtf. '
" <5RL.P.No.4894/2006
= -~$ri.O.R.Varadaraju. Major.
R/0 No.136. Main Road.
Kollegal.
(By Sri: Mah21r'1'£.esh 8.1---Ioxsxmxfh. ADV.)
JANUARY.
PETITIONER
...PETITIONER
...PFITITIONER
...PETITIONER
AND:
1. Kollegal Industries Ltd..
A company ir1corpoI'2.1'1ed under the
Companies Act 1913 having its Regd.
Office at Southern Extension. Kollegal.
Karnataka. Repby its M.D.
2. Sri.A.S.SI'idhaI'a Babu, Major.
S/0 Sri.Annadana Subbasetty. *
R/a Marigudi Beedi. Kolle-gal. V
3. Sri.A.S.Jayarama Setty. S'/oj_
Annadana Subbasetty. Major;
R/a Marigudi Beedi. Kollegal. L
4. Sri.A.S.Nagendra
S / o Annaclana Subbase'fity'.A R,{aE ' M
Marigudi Beedi.jKo11egeA1HE_.j_v" V '
5. Smt.Ka3a\wa4£3'i13~.:j:.Major'.i
R/a Ma1'igudi~ Kr)_:1!_ogaI.
6. Srr:11<.\fij4'ayajl:aii~§V:'sj'i*.x .
R/a Ma1ii_gLzdi BVoedi.;--?§_o}l__e-ga'l.
7. SmLA.Saod1fiya'1'2ini;'"MojoI'.
RMa1oigfudi B'eeVC1_i_,_jKo11ega1.
' _VS1'E.,_R..V';7f?13fagarajan, Major.
R,/aj'No;--40. 1o=$F__l'»/Iain Road, 11"' Cross.
'-Mai1es\va"rj3njj:; BangaEorem56O O03.
9..44"S:ifE\/a1.Aoanda Murthy. Major.
S/0 Ma.';1a11ia Devaru. R/a Kjnkanahalli.
K ., "Ya1_and'urTa1uk.
" 'Chomarajanagar.
510. S1'i.C.A.Sur1de1' Raj, Major.
'" S/0 SI'i.A1'unachalamshetty.
R/a Marigucfi Beedi. Kollegal.
RESPONDEN'i'S COMMON
IN ALL THE CASES
1?
{E/"
(By Sri: P. S. DIN ESHKU MAR. ADV. FOR R1 81
SRI.G.R.ANANTI"iRAM. ADV. FRO R2 TO R10) ~
THESE CRL.Ps ARE FILED U/S.-482
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED OR{)ER.PASSE;i3
BY THE P.O.. FTC. CHAMARA..J_Ai\_3A.GA.R _ I'i\'._
cRL.R.P.No.5s/2004. 54/2004. 55../2004 &.; 5'7/2004;
RESPECTIVELY DATED 11.7.2oo6;ANo o.R£)eiRi9Ass.E.D_sY
THE PRL.C.J (JR.DN] es: J'-MF'--.Ci,~' i<oLL..EGAi.i'---~..":N
PCR.NOS.35/1992. 34/92, 33/92 &-.31./92 RE2SP'ECTIV!33i.Y'v,
DATED 31.8.2004 AND oiREc:'r--~.irHE J~1\/iFC_., 'E$O*L_LEGAL TO- '
TAKE COGNIZANCE ON THE Peg'.-
These Cri.Ps cording oriior oridtiiiis day. the
court made the followings»
WoRDER&
_..._.'...__ '.W|
As eomfnofi.""C1ue'sf;'i-ori'.-3..ugfaei and law arises for
consicidei-atiioiifiri pet'.ii,ioris. the matters were heard
together: and a1'eVbie:in;:g"di:s'p.osed of by this common order.
2. I'r1"-these'petiiisons' filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
thV_e'3res_;;Ajeevtive "pet.i._t__i_Qne1's have sought for setting aside the
'.oi"de1' passed by Fast Track Court.
'ei:ama.rg;j':;:1:;;g:i1- in Cr1.R.P.No.56/2004, 54/2004. 55/2004
<3: respectively dismissing those revision petitions
'a;nd_ avfi"im1i-mg ihe orders dated 31.8.2004 passed by the
ii»'i«;.::m1Jiidge (Jr.Dr1} in P.C.R.Nos. 35/1992, 34/92, 33/92
"8: 31/92 respectively reiiisiiig to take cognizance of the
offence by aeeepi.ing 'B' report' submitted by the police.
9%
3. The petitioners herein filed four p1'ivate complaints
against the common respondents who have been aifraye_d'-as
Al to A10 alleging offences punishable under.
474. 415. 468. 471. 403 and 405 of life inter -a;’iv–;%.”fc;.cu¥’i’tend:mg’
that the petitioners were owners of ceAri”aiinl’essliares
acctised–company and at one,po__ini oilttvinxe they”int_eiided to
sell their share holdings in the l”irs.1_.lac_cused+r:ornpangy and in
that behalf they execLite;d.”shar.3e iorrns and delivered
them to second acc,usedH_t_o’ eyiilect :t.i’ansfei9;vv..iju1. the second
accused did not ti’ar1sie’1″lwithin’-lthemperiod oi” validity of
the share transferl.l.fo’1*Ii1s’*avnci’*t.hereailter again the second
accusedHaloproacheci’Jthe2.compl.ailnants with a request to
deliver l’reslidt1ly VS.i}’il:fi€?’C:1l’t.1_’.:2l’t’1}Sl”€I’ forms, but by that time. the
complainantsdecidedAi1ot”‘to sell their shares. Therefore,
..t_l.1ey’v.:_rei’tisec}.to siga1″”fi’e’sh transfer forms and to deliver the
l=,sa.me”!’o”t.he .s”eco’nd accused and at the same time they also
struclil oFi’th’ei_i’ signatures found on the transfer forms which
‘they hadllsigned earlier and delivered to the second accused.
~.:B11lll’l1’Q\N€V€I’. those transfei’ forms remained in the custody
“‘«*’of”th.e second accused and subsequently on suspicion when
llfithe complainants made enquiries they came to know that A2
to A7 colluding together and on the basis of the l’orgged
transfer forms have transferred the share liolcliiiggs of the
complainants in the first accused Company in the name of
A8 to A10 and thus the accused have eonmi_ivt.te’d’4lthe
aforesaid offences.
4. Upon presentation of the
Magistrate referred the cone1pl’aints”._lo’i”
provided under Section submit
reports. On the basis jitzrisdietioiial
police registered cases 11iiiliriifestigation. After
completing the reports in all the
cases. ‘[‘1~1=i-’34” tvere served on the
complai”n’a’n1’sl..:andlllithlereiafter ti«1lexcolmplainants filed protest
filed by the police and
expressed their ‘wilVli;.’1gr:.es’s”t.o take the burden of proving the
alleged inn”tih~e——complaint by themselves. Thereafter
t,he”ieaA1’11ed :Ma’gist.rate recorded the sworn statement of the
cornp’iainan.ts_ and the witnesses produced by them. After
‘shearing the complainant. the learned Magistrate by separate
ll..:iordersy&passed in each of the cases. held that there are no
prima facie grounds to proceed against the accused persons
for any of the offences alleged in the complaints and in that
View of the matter the learned Magistrate accepted”B’ report.
Aggrieved by the said order the complainants filed revision
ON
petition before the teamed Sessions Judge which were later
transferred to Fast Track Court. Chan1arajaI1ag_ar.:
Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court by .
are challenged in these petitions,
petitions affirming the order of
against these orders, the prese11t_.petit’io;nS
of Cr.P.C are fiied.
5. Though the i’r1d.:.tt’i~ese~f”petitions relate
to pre–cog11izaf11’Cé1’fieridd, su’oh,”:–‘the…:iaersor1s named as
accused in€.n’ecessary to be heard,
notice to the respondents and
upon before this court through
their 1e_a1’I1edd’~r’,oLtnVse1. V
6. have hea’rd_bot.h sides and perused the orders of the
_ eoarts be§ovw:”\,.,. ‘
“of-._t1j.e compiaints filed by the petitioners are
p1;od4uced..aIe.11fg with the petitions. On perusa! of these
V.,con1p1a’;i3f1t’s it is noticed that the avermellts made in the
‘*.x(‘TC1i1_”1§)”i’A,EiiIitS are vagtie and bereft of necessary particulars to
eo}nstitut.e the offen<:es aiieged in the conipiaint. Though it is
it
the specific case of the coinpiainants that at one point oi'
time. they intended t.o sell their share holdings E1I1d_H,'l_:ei7_'(L3(I"OvI'€.
they signed share transfer forms and delivered:thieriifit'o._ftifs.e.' .
second accused. but the second accused'"d'id:'~t1o't:. effect
transfer within the period of valid:-t-y,d3 nowhere tii:1-e
complaints the specific dates -on the!'co.{1tptaii1§ant.sdd?
executed and delivered the _tra1is'i7e_rfiforniis to the
second accused has sp–eit"u.r_ther though it is
stated that subsequently"A2tcanieifltqyi.i/t3§§~',:i%jt;.riipiainants with
a request to de'ii'y'e;vr:y1.riew:iy forms. again
the on which the second
with such request
has nothbeeni Wcoiilplaint. Except the mere
statjenient on tVhe_part; ofvthe coniplairiant that when the
«–.secO:ndd :§LCCL'..S€d canie"'to them with a request for deiivering
forms, they struck oft" their signatures
found on earlier transfer forms, there is absolutely no
',.rnaterial"'produced by the complairaants to prima facie
.,:i:s:,tVbis't–antiatce that contention. The courts beiow have rightly
' observed that the contention of the complainants that even
after st'riis'.ing off their signat.ures, the share transfer forms
remained in the custody of the second accused cannot be
beiieved. I do not see any error in the said finding of the
courts below. As a prudent persons the complainants it'
really*had struck off their signatures found on ihewtransler
forms on account' of their changed decision of not se'li.ii&g__:'ii:_e.' .
share holdings would not have allowed t'uhose"ti'a:I1vsi'er foyrms
to remain in the custody of the secon-do féict
remains that the complainants have laclniitteda.'that:4E,hey'§ had
signed and delivered share the second
accused for effecting In absence
of any particulars as shares were
transferred arrd 'oi7.t:What._ tliiejvc-ourtsibelow are right in
holding thal ifor taking cognizance
and to Both the courts below
have complainants have failed to
place any niiaterialto frrocieed against the accused persons. I
.__do see any er'i'oi"*'*i*i1' the findings recorded by the courts
below _ Ptoigrourids t.o interfere with the said order.
'"'Accordtj_ngjly, these petitions are dismissed.
335-'§
ltzdgé
KVN*