AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rallies India Ltd.) and the Appellant, Company Secretary of M/s. Rallies India Ltd.. are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the aforesaid proceedings. 3. The brief facts of the case are that K.T. Vijay Kumar-Respondent No. 1 joined M/s. Rallis India Ltd..-Respondent No. 4, as Sales Representative and later promoted to different posts. The Company entrusted various powers to him including the powers to recommend various companies or firms for dealership to sell company's product. Taking advantage of the powers entrusted by the Company, Respondent No. 1 along with few of his relatives and friends clandestinely formed two partnership firms and he appointed them as Company's dealers to misappropriate funds by way of diverting goods from M/s. Rallies India. It is alleged that upon enquiry, it was found that huge amount of stocks were routed clandestinely through the said two firms and Respondent No. 1-Vijay Kumar along with his associates defrauded the Company M/s. Rallies India. It is further alleged that Vijay Kumar-Respondent No. 1 floated a Company called Chemical Biotech Ltd.. with his wife and relatives at Vijayawada while he was serving with M/s. Rallies India Ltd.. and his Compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the shareholding pattern as the part of well-planned conspiracy perfectly planned and executed by them and other directors of the Chemical Biotech Ltd.. to cheat and depute the common men via the IPO mode and finally to embezzle crores of rupees. We are in the process of approaching CBL's banks, financial institutions and the state government departments which have also been mislead by these habitual cheats and had been made a part of the conspiracy in the proposed initial public offer. This shall help these banks, financial institution & state govt. departments to revaluate their support for these habitual cheats at the cost of public money. 8. The said letter was in turn forwarded by Ashika Capital Ltd.. to Respondents' Company on 21.12.2006. It was alleged by the Respondents that the imputations made in the letter dated 14.12.2006 are defamatory. Hence, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a private complaint in the Court of Ist Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, against the present proforma Respondent Company viz., Rallis India through its Managing Director, present Appellant (Company Secretary of proforma Respondent Company) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alse case has been made out against the Appellant. Dr. Singhvi submitted that the Appellant cannot be an accused for commission of an offence of defamation when the document relied in the complaint clearly and categorically points out that the Appellant had no role to play in any part of the alleged commission of the offence. Learned Counsel further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Thermax Limited and Ors. v. K.M. Johny and Ors.: (2011) 13 SCC 412, Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre: (1988) 1 SCC 692. 12. Indisputably, judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. 13. It is equally well settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the order taking cognizance by the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court is called upon to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence, the High Court is guided by the allegations, whether those allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet, do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of court or not. 17. In Radhey Shyam Khemka v. State of Bihar (1993) 3 SCC 54, this Court again held: 8. The complaint made by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to the CBI mentions different circumstances to show that the Appellants did not intend to carry on any business. In spite of the rejection of the application by the Stock Exchange, Calcutta they retained the share moneys of the applicants with dishonest intention. Those allegations were investigated by the CBI and ultimately charge-sheet has been submitted. On basis of that charge-sheet cognizance has been taken. In such a situation the quashing of the prosecution pending against the Appellants only on the ground that it was open to the applicants for shares to take recourse to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. 19. The relevant paragraphs of the complaint filed by the Respondent in the present case are reproduced hereinbelow: That the complainant's company chemical Biotech Ltd.., with an intention to go in with public issue engaged Ashika Capital Limited, a company based in Mumbai as Lead Managers to handle their public issue and in the course of their due diligence act they have sought for certain clarifications and information in respect of the Complainant Company's credentials so as to go ahead with the publication of the prospectus, as the 1st accused earlier made a representation against the Complainants to SEBI. That the 2nd accused representing the 1st Accused Company through a letter dated 14.12.2006 addressed to Mr. Hari Surya, Manager-MBD, Ashika Capital Limited, Nariman Point, Mumbai, have made very wild false and absolutely b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it is duly acknowledged by the accused, but they did not respond for the reasons best known. Copy of legal notice and postal acknowledgments were also filed along with the complaint. Evidence spoken by the complainant and the documents enclosed including the documents referred above, prima facie made out the case for the offences Under Section 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code. Except the vague averments made in the complaint, probably to attract the offences against A.3 to A.9 who are only directors of the company, no material is places to substantiate their active participation in releasing the letter dt. 14.12.2006 by a.2 who is Company Secretary of a. 1 company. A.1 is a company represented by; its Managing Director. It is a legal entity. Company is sued arraying as A.1 in the name of its Managing Director and author of the letter is arrayed as A.2. In these circumstances, A.1 company and A.2 Secretary of A.1 company are only necessary and proper parties. No overacts against the other accused (A.3 to A.9) who are only directors of a.1 company. In the circumstances, case is taken on file for the offences Under Section 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code against A.1 and A.2 dismissing the....