9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. S. Muralidhar, J . These petitions under sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seek the quashing of FIR No. 972 of 1998 registered at the police station, Connaught Place, under section 406/409/ 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the criminal proceedings emanating therefrom. The FIR in question narrates that a complaint was received from one Dr. Rakesh Oberoi seeking appropriate action against K.M. Capital Ltd. ("the company") and its managing director Shri Kuldeep Mansukhani. The complaint was that the company had failed to repay fixed deposits made by the complainant and others with it on maturity. The cheques issued by the said company for repayment of the deposits were dishonoured upon presentation to the bank for payment. The investigation by the police resulted in the filing of a charge sheet on April 20, 2000. The specific averments in the charge sheet relevant for the present petitions, filed by three of the persons who are stated to have been directors of the company, read as under: "During the course of investigation, the complaints of the investors of K.M. Capital Ltd., continued to pour in the Economic Offences Wing of Crime Branch. Fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ldeep Mansukhani in Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi; a/c. No. 2545 in the name of Sunita Mansukhani and Zile Singh; HSS a/c. No. 2193 in the name of Sunita Mansukhani and a/c. No. 794 in the names of Kuldeep Mansukhani in Central Bank of India, Sukhdev Vihar branch, New Delhi; joint a/c. No. 9620 in the joint names of Kuldeep Mansukhani and Rajlakshmi alias Sunita Mansukhani in Punjab National Bank, ECE House, Connaught Place, New Delhi; a/c. No. 61/14219 in the name of Kuldeep Mansukhani in the State Bank of India, Kapashera, Delhi and transferred funds of K.M Capital Ltd., into individual accounts of the accused persons from the respective banks stated above. The accused persons, viz ., Zile Singh, Anup Kumar, Ashok Sikka, Amrit Lal Anand, V.H. Pandya, Bhaskar Joshi and Sunit Mansukhani took part in the meetings of the board of directors of accused company K.M. Capital Ltd., in the capacity of directors and by passing resolutions, they participated in taking major policy decisions of the accused company. They were the decision makers and were aware of the day-to-day functioning of the company. They were equally responsible for the affairs of the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors under various schemes. II. That the office of the company was closed when it apprehended action by the police, on the complaints of various investors, and as such most of the company record was destroyed. During search, when Shri Kuldeep Mansukhani, CMD, was arrested on February 4, 2000 (about 15 months after the registration of the company), certain documents, prospectus and publicity material of the company was sealed. III. That the prospectus of the company were signed by all the directors, including the petitioner. IV. That it has also been revealed that Shri Ashok Sikka also used to attend the meetings of the board as shown in the minutes of the meeting held on November 27, 1995, at the company's office at Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi, which were seized during investigation. V. That it is also evident from the investigation that in the publicity material seized during the arrest of CMD Shri Mansukhani that the company had highlighted the experience and quality of all the directors, including the petitioner Ashok Sikka, by mentioning their past experience with other institutions and thereby attracting investors who were forced to believe the bona fide of the compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from the affidavits filed by the Investigating Officer that as far as Shri Ashok Sikka was concerned he had resigned in May, 1997, itself. It is not indicated even in the affidavit what role Shri Ashok Sikka played either in the acceptance of the deposits during the relevant time or during the time when the company failed to repay the deposits. In particular, the cheques that were drawn and got dishonoured were all subsequent to the date of the resignation of Shri Ashok Sikka. Likewise as regards Shri Pandya, apart from saying that the company had started collecting deposits around the time of his resignation on June 25,1997, the affidavit does not say if Shri Pandya was in any way involved during the time the company defaulted in the repayment of the deposits. Also, the cheques that were dishonoured were issued after the date of resignation of Shri Pandya. Shri Joshi resigned on the same' day as Shri Pandya and copies of the respective Form No. 32 filed in terms of the requirements under the Companies Act, 1956, have been placed on record. These remain uncontroverted. In Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [2007] 140 Comp. Cas. 590 ; [2007] 11 Scale 318, the law pertaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
