.1. Crl. P 7'02/O3
IN THIS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23"' DAY OF IJECEMBER 2010
BEFO RE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A.S.PACHI-{AE§URE'fI-=1: _
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.702/2088 ffjy. V"
BETWEEN
1.
SMT. SATHYAVATHI PATTAEIRAMAAI, w.A-.:CAIII3'; "
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, X " _ "
W/O. SRI. A.S. PATTABIRAMAN, "
R/O. THE PREM1sEs..BE.AR1NG--. N016-.07-A,
I MAIN, II STAGE, RAJAIJINAQAR; A I
BANGALORE«56O 010: 3
JY0TsANA-- EATTI'xEIRAwIAI\I, M.;B.A.,
AGED r"IBt;)UT'53O YEARS, A
W'/0, I/IA:):I;RAAIA*I*«EI "EQNETY.
MANAGE'IvI_ENTc(3.I\I(:.I,II;I*AI\IT,
NO. 41. 6, ICOL.LEC¥I3,. A'-.I_I«:'I\IUE.
POLOALTO CALIF',C)RNIA, U.S.A.
3 'A'J.A,.I?.}A BLE A1;
.,No_,6o7u_A",v IIVIAIN. II STAGE.
PA,'*I*EMELIS STREET
OFF:.__C.M.H. RQAD,
V . INDIRA'NAGA;R I STAGE,
BANGAl;ORE 38.
' v REP. ' BY ITS I)IREcTOR
, '~I>'.S,_MI_IRALI. RESPONDENT/S
(M;/S. MA1″‘1ES}’I AND CO.. ADVS.}
3 Cr}. P 702/O3
THIS CRIMINAL. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C. RRAYINC TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER 3;)”: 01.8.02 PASSED BY THE W A.C.M.IvI..
BANGALORE CIY IN C.C.NO.82IS/02 (PCR.NO.799/02} AND
ORDERING PROCESS AGAINST THEM FOR ‘R_.T’HEIR
APPEARANCE BEFORE THE COURT AND QUASII”aTI:1E
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. O’ .
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IIA_vIN_O- EEEN’.AI-ED’
RESERVED, COMING ON FOR! PRO’NO’UNCE1\/I–ENT”VOuP’
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE’THE EOLIIOWW-C.:”I*ii.R.:
The petitioners have -the by the
Court below taking v.§’.[A:’f1F’?_I’I1 for the offence
punishable under ASeet:IorIS_ —-
The -f..”o_I’–the purpose of this petition are
as under: ” 4′ h J
I–*.I.ri.I1 reufezi .I.O”i1l’1€..})a}:l’i€S as per their rank in the Court.
“be}o\”Ar fori»-.i;he””pI,1rpoSeof Convenience.
T}’1%3S4″‘1€iLi§’l;VOI1{?l’S herein are Accused NoS.2 to 7, xivhereas
” –.1’€-‘giVS’LC’i;€d with the Reserve Béllfli of IIId1’a and it aCCep£.S the
respc-IIdeII’i*EIefI”eiI1 is the Complairlant.
V’ .. __The'” ConIp1ainant is 21 .:1on»baI1kirIg finarlce Company
, /
3, /
2′.
fm
/.1. Cri. P 702/O3
deposits from the public in turn giving them a good rate of
interest on the said deposits. The money so depositeCi:li’s.beihg;
generated for further finance for i11C1l1St.I’i€S. hire :’pt.ircf1asir.1lg: ”
and leasing and the Company is reQ:6i¥’.fll1’g z1.’ttiraVcé’t.ii.%fVe iht’erest_y
and thereby the complainant is CO11dL1.t?T.iI1:g’ the b”e1S’i’i’.1_€.SS. ~ T A
Accused No.1 was appointedfias. an “;E1Xecutit%-e in
the year 1995 after he took~yo1u1:tary. State
Bank of India. wherein ll y’Agjt.:g,vl””J3epLity General
Manager. The promgot-ers l ggrnpany thought
that Accused No lltti’as3’_y_havii-ag’sufficient. financial background
and would serve”agoyovdypurpose or: the Board and accordingly.
he was inducted intzo the B’o_ar’d”:as an Executive Director. The
C()I}1p1al}f1E.11’1t wuas._Vu11a’wai*-e that the first accused Wanted to
l<.'»i1l"("3I' Iilfllaf) 53.511'islfiompatiyllolilly to build subterfuge and to siphon
oll_'_'the_Corripamy's_rri.oney by 1n.isappropr'iatioh and cheating.
The fii:rsti'"accL1sed adopted the modus operandi and was
' i'ile'ge1i1y eilcashing the monies of the Company through various
a.ccot1'1'1t.s held b his direct. relatives in the said com an . It is
_. . Y Y
that t.he height of his CI'.iII1l.11E1Ii'fy was achieved in the
5 Cr]. P 702/O3
year 1999 when he became the Managing Director of the
Company. in furtherance of his intention, he is said to have
misappropriated the amount. to the tune of Rs.5,94,2_1}9_i'4;38.
He also purchased property in his name and in the"r1afr.1re_::o~i':_his
wife Accused No.2 by withdrawing the arziouiitefroni the,
complainant: company by iratlduient. n1ea;=:1s.ppand«._iiidi..iced_a
depositor t.o file a company petition*– for wind.i–rig:'L1:p of
complainant company. He is sa'id::"to have.__sipi1o11ed off huge
amount from the con.1'pla_int_«"heo1*ii~panji;..A He dropped three
directors and in their place and G.H.Patel
who are bl1|SS{1…1H:V_Vvi,E1'1£;1VtV8.I'§3 of 't=he'.j_'fraud'u1e1'1t games being
enac1:.ec11.: by f everyone had the belief on
Accused ifio. i– ihatVheA:_i's_[amiable person. The complainant states
that Aecvused""1'€o_V.' i v14&sed"vtodvtrithdraw the amount and deposit it
rgiames of'Hhi's""re]atiVes and the amount. of deposit
V'–,riiisappr(';priat'edV '-by Accused No.1 in connection with other
aiiecused he_s=»bee;i'ixeiiuxiiemted in para 14 of the coniplairit. The
_ amouht of deposits in the names of the respective persons has
b'er3ijp_give'ri¢ir1 detail and totally a sum of Rs.5,94.2I 914-36 is
p sai'd.,_t_of have been misappropriated. The depositors are none
/ '
V\ //'5».,.
x..,
6 Cr}. P 702/O8
else than the wife of Accused No.1 i.e., Accused No.2. the
daughter Accused No.3. the sister of Accused No.2 who is
Accused No.4. the brother in law of Accused I\to.liJW’l1o is
Accused No.5 and the Indian histitute of }§I.r1..t4ifep’1*ei1e’LE1″
Develo-pmeni. wherein Accused No.1 is the Presiderit said i
iristitiute and Accused No.7? Smt..Geef;ha W119 is aiso_so_id_ t’o’be°a
relative of Accused No.1. The comp1_ainant
properties worth Rs.2.65,92,848;{?”were pu.rci1ias:3dvdbp3’iVVAccusedV
No.1 in his name and .»–t;1.’1e nariic. this retai:’1ves”V and t.he
properties have been Valuedfby’ it is the case of
the complainant scoririziwviance with Accused
Nos.2 to 7_ _mAisapp_repria.eied.’ huge amount of money of the
coriipiairiarit”corripar1}}’;– complainant has also given the
part’icu13.rs oi”A.t:h..eA piioperties by way of Armexures A to H to the
V.”comVp–lai_J;13-t”.: 1i”i..«addiiio’h”,”t’.11e complainant has produced many
t’docu_ii1e1i:t”s.._ir;’vdistipport of his claim and also stibmitted the list
of wi._t_’nesses to, prove the case against the accused.
n j ‘I’he…’:I’ria1 Court after registering the complaint. recorded
[ «swori1_.rstatement and under the i1i”:pL1g;hed order has f’Lai{€I’1
(_.Yv(‘)”.fN;j:f11′.’»CE111C(.’. against Accused Nos.2 to 7 and aggrieved by the
/3
7 Cr}. P 702/O3
said order, Accused Nos.2 to 7 have filed this petition
challenging the validity of the order.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the –pet.itio.r’iers
and also the respondent. The point that a’i-i«ses:&pV”i:;o’ri
consideration is: _
“Whether the Trial Cotart fwas jtzstiiied
taking cognizance agair:’st*-..t_p11e p€1’i1i1O{1€i”iSAl1:i1~»1.lf16′-‘
offence under Sections I-E20 1f5C?.’i_
4. It is the contention ioffitliie counsel for the
petitioners t11at.V111’1:e a:1_epc{sitsb the”‘~n’a.n1e or the petitioners are
their own ‘the’v…cc–r1’ipany has no nexus with the
amount cieposited. _ ti1.en1:.’ So also, he subrnits that
Dr.K.R.’Pardn1aizat’1ii;’W1″1o’ is Petitioner No.3 [Accused No.4) has
.”1’il6dV”a icornpiaiiit to Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Reidrressalvv’€o’1n£nis~si()11 for taking action against the company
for re_fu~n_di..1’1g the deposit amount. it is his submission that
niatt-e_r_3is purely of civil nature wherein the company has
i V’e\;1:~s1p_i’r;st,itut:ed the suit against the petitioners and Accused
x
8 ‘ Crl. P 702/03
No.£ and in the circumstances. the order taking cogiiizance is
illegal and pe1″Ve1’se.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the ;«4¢”s;$:’m§’ie;1:
has supported the order of the Court below.
6. A perusal of the CO1T1pl3li]t r:eveal’s t’hat_.: lldtulji)
about 41 pages and in additioit. thereare’.doct1ira.-erits i’)roi:1ueed’g
by the complainant with his c’oIiip3.aii1t Vand”alsol7thel list of
witnesses. Now. so far as the re’la.tiozishVi”p- ._betweer1 the accused
is concerned, Accused No.1.) ‘wh’o’li.s’l the” accused is the
husband of Acct1sed’*-No.22. and Accused
No.4 .is’.the_ -No.2 and Accused No.5 is the
brotherwixfilawcoil whereas Accused No.6 is t.he
institute. Lwhereiri Accused No.1 is the president. and Accused
. ll\lo.V7 also a~:”e1ativelHollfAccused No.1. So in the background of
Ithis_-reIa.t,ionsh.ipVamongst. the accused. if the allegations are
seer1~.,it is st_’at~ed that Accused No.1. who was 2′: sole signatory
on the drew the amount either in his name or in the
A l”;’1a.mel”of some other person. acquired the property riientioned
V’ in the schedule and deposited the money in the name of his
.,__’7w-K’
9 Crl. P 702/O8
relatives and the amount deposited in the respective I1-ames of
the accused has been €I1t,1I11€I”E1l€d in para 14 of the ‘coinfflaivritz.
Totally, an amount of Rs.5,94,21.9l4–f36 has beeiiili
the name of the accused and others:”S.0& th’esedeposit:s:’were C
said to have been withdrawn by AectieeldllNo’.’]_v”ai1d_Afftsused
No.1 is said to have been coi1ir’ni_tted anlarrt ofrifisap;p’:’*oVpriationV C
in conspiracy with the other who cohimiytted an act of
cheating and misapp1°opiriat’ed theifu1id*sjvofltlhe company.
7. It may true instituted a suit
for recovery cf’ -the’..’rejiatiyes of Accused No.1, but
that i'[S6’ll”Cl{_;~.}’}:.Cfl– e;éAiiipt”the accused from criminal liability, if
there is :I”11ate:_ri.al yiaceused for the offences alleged. it
is no dotibtttrtte-__that*…t§tCcused Nos.4 and 5 had filed
CO1np1_té1it1t’S to Vllthey Karnataka State Consumers Disputes
V VflileidyressalnlFortluti in Complaint Nos. 12/2004 and 41/2004 and
1t–helViVt:s_’.o1’de1″ dated 21–1o«2oo5 has directed to pay
Rs.2O lakhs with interest at 1.3% p.a. to the
‘c»omp1ai*nVai1;ts. The compla.ir1ants before the Forzun were
:’AcAA(:ue.ed l\los.4~ and 5 in the complaint lodged before the
ff.–Cr_-‘nii1*ia1 Court. The mere fact that the E<'ortm1 has passed such
10 Cr}. P 702/O3
an order for refund itself is not a ground piima facie to hold
that the accused are innocent. and that there is a civil dispute.
The question of misappropriat.ion was not for cto'r1side1*a_ti'o;i by
the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes»-.Rediressal
Commission. As to how much properties each of._t;he_l."acct1.lsed_
had and whether the amount. in dephosityv'a_s'"acqu–ired_Vybytlheih
individually or it is the money of the company which has beeri'
withdrawn by Accused No.1 at'idV.V"d,eposited in names of
different other accused a nia'tter:"for*consideration in due
course of trial.
far t.h’es””al1eg’a’iior3s in the complaint are
concerne’d, adrI’iit_iedly,h alltiiellaccused are related to each other
and huge ainount’l3,_as._Vhee~n deposited in the name of other
accused and 11Ot”l€S.SW_£hEtI1 5 crores of money is said to have
.rnisVapproijriat.ed. At the stage of taking cognizance, it is
only” the which will have to be looked into to find out
«as to.44whevther’.Vthey constittite an offence punishable under the
” iprovisaiorisl of the Penal Code. 80 there are specific allegations
.Aj_.th;1i’.'”Accused No.1 in conspiracy with the other accused
c’h”eai.ed the company and in these circu.msi,ancesi the other
J-5
/I
5
1 //W –
12 Cr}. P 702/03
and the prima faeie niateriai on record. 80 ihe perusa_I.__oi’ the
Compiaint. reveais that there is prinia faeie material aga.i_.r_’;–si”*t.he
petitioners for the offence under Sections 403
In that View of the matter. as there isJ11Q_meri_’;f in “1′;h’i$. reviiseiori I2
answer the point in affirmative 2indj’p;t0ceed “~i’:_d
foliowing:
,ommfijV_ The petition is disn1isVsed.'" --. Sd E.- JUDGE JL