Mr Ganapa Sreenivasa Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2010

Ti:iVs”Crim’iria! Petition is filed under Section–482 of Code of

V*7Crim,ina| iiiirorieydtire praying to quash the FIR in Crime

.1i§io’.§1.,.37/2C0-1,0 bending on the file of the iv Additional Chief

V.°v~4″_vMetto;ac§|i’tan Magistrate, Bangalore.

if

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent — State, this matter is heard on merits..”‘._,:”7li_l*i-ev

materials placed before this Court is sufficient to _

case at this stage.

3. The primary facts of the case are”-as€.in’dVer’:>.

3.1 one Sri Gadde Babji,
Limited, Bangalore has filed,” a co-mVpl’gain’t..__bef0′”re-,the Police

Inspector, Yelahanka New T0v\in”Po_li};i;=:i~ §:ta’tio:n’,.,Bangalore on

27.4.2010.

3.2 ThevzC0Vnt.entsVgoflthe’ c0;m.pl–aint are as under:
That _McMi_xlaS~/s’temis Ai>=trl1i\l/ate Limited is a Private Limited
W.,as”in’Ct)’r”‘p0rated on 9.8.2009. The firm

transectsthe:p:,isin’ess_:,thr0ughout the world having its office at

Ind’i3_s’trialv_.E’stg:*te, Yelahanka, Bangalore. Mr. Ganappa

-4d.lSr.een.i,vasa Raoi S/0 Peeda Koteshwara Rao was appointed as

it~l5?ia«na:g_ing,lfiirector of this firm in January–2003. and he was paid

. V’xa7lp-proximately Rs.8 lakhs as salary per year. On 28.2.2010

2…?

Ganappa Sreenivas Rao resigned from the post of Managing

Director. His resignation was accepted by the Board of

Directors. During 2010, he was drawing a saiary of Rs.24.

peryean

3.3 Every year the accounts of the firm._wer_embein’g»a.udi’_tedt-._V in

by Akasham & Associates. The yearly ;’transaction.

was crores of rupees and the busin_e’s.sx even
India. The Board of Directors infOr’n’i_atip5n from
Auditors viz. Akasham & Associates that ethical
business and financiatpracticles’ On perusal

of the preiimifnary’ audit}-re’port,:”it.was noticed that Mr. Ganapa
Sreenivasa Rao”<a_nc!_three'."en1-pioyees of the firm viz., Mr.
Ve.i_u.mani,,.«i§{1'rv. 1'5enthVi'i"J.:a_ndAvMr. Suresh .M have created faise

anci,_fajbricate-d._documents to cheat the company and

'xv._misapprop–rirat'eda"_thegfunds of the company to the tune of more

V'.:-grhar:VRs.3t3'O when the Board of Directors interrogated ali

.1the4'ab:o'vepersons, in the beginning they ciaimed the ignorance

AV"rt."Vand.jwere"sa'ying that they did not do any wrong. Later on when

h""'v.__the..:preIiminary Audit Report and ail the concerned records were

£9},

brought: to their notice, they admitted the guilt of creating false

and fabricated documents and cheating the company ___and

misappropriating the funds of the company to the tune

iakhs.

3.4 Ni the documents regarding ap_pointme–n’t”of*t.h»e”ab’ovevi-V_V it”

four persons in the Company, the :”:detfaiii~3; of

misappropriated and fabricated docur’i’ients c’reatedf”toA’cheatthe
company were also furnished a_|..oingwiitVh .the..,_AAcofnp|aint.
Therefore it is prayed in the “co’mpia.ir;{t’for-Vregis,tering the case

against the above persons an:d”‘t’o–recfoueir_the they have

misaDDr0Driafed if

4. On the basis A:.:ti*ii»s”wcompiaint, Yeiahanka New Town
Poiice haveg.registe’red avcase in”:Crime No.13?/2010 against the

actusea for€’th”e offenceswpfuvnishable under sections 408, 420,

Indian Penai Code. The remand

7.g:”a’pvp|ication4__Vof_.the’i’..Po|ice Inspector of Yelahanka Police Station

‘ ” -disci_oses the foiiowing:

gV”‘;friva.t:uAccused No.4 was a Group Finance Officer of the

On 13.7.2009 Accused No.4 aiongwith Accused No.1

if

had obtained a contract order for Rs.32,50,000/- from a

Maiasiyan company. Through E.maii accused had p|an:3e’d_:bit.o

cheat 10 to 20 lakhs to the company in the above contract”iejrider*;..__J” _

In this Connection, accused had also Vpyrepared””fa’i.<':e":vdbiil"forth

Rs.19.00 lakhs. They have aiso crea,tecififa'ise,_.'T.'A; "bVi:i'§ti/__Aof;_s

empioyees to the tune of Rs.90,000;*–:_,..
Rs.3,60,000/– in the name 1_ of onetyi:ii'jr4:ad~h,\uri1iiasitontésuitancy
charges by creating fake ._in the remand
appiication it is statedthat false and
fabricated docum.efi§'é.é funds of the

company.

5. It is the iearned counsei for the
petitioners ;_t’h”a.t. accuse_d”wasv’working with the complainant as a

thereafter he retired in the month of

February%2Qi1GV[“‘-«Auteyr.he was retired, one of the Directors fiied a

V’qcom_piairat’~..bef_oretithe Poiice Inspector, Yeiahanka New Town

dddydtfioidicemStaytionpBangalore though he has not been authorised to

‘a_V’C-C-napiaint. Learned counsei for the petitioners aiso

that the facts narrated in the complaint are civii in

{/1

averments made in the complaint constitute the offences alleged

or not. At this stage, merit or demerit of the case of the accused

or the defence of the accused cannot be examined. It is..:a.l.leig_édV

in the complaint and also in the preliminary audit .

accused have misappropriated the funds_,oft_he com”panyl”tov’_’_t.he-_ ll”

tune of Rs.36O lakhs. 1: have carefully :’peru_sed the”~ayerrn1f:–nt’sii.j

made in the complaint with great”E:a”reV and-imy r L’

view, the allegations made against thefl’pe_titi_oners” constitute the

offences alleged. The matter isitstillrurider”investigation. This is

not the rarest of rare_r’cases;-Where t’l1i.s.__Cour,t:”‘can exercise its

inherent of Criminal Procedure
to quash the crime.This’Criim’ina’l~«petition is devoid of merits and
the same is .li,ablet’o be di’smi.ssécl.

‘~53, I’\l:ti.:’thi..si:stage, lxear’n’ed counsel for the petitioners submits

that’ and filing of the charge sheet, the

V7.:f”‘p’etitioneifs’V%mayiibelll given liberty to file an application for

‘i-liliii-Vs«c_h’arge before the Court below. They are at liberty to do so

the grounds which are mentioned in the criminal

‘ipetitionf In case if petitioners file an application for discharge

id/2’

before the Court beiow, the same shall be disposed”.

accordance with law.

9. In view of the above discussion;»~I..pasahthe’t.-fof’iov\}.i:ng’o’._V ‘ ‘

order:

0RDEfigh

This Criminai petition is it ‘

Gss/–