[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
M/S.T.M.Food Processing Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 8665 OF 2022. 842 and 911 OF 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOS: 777, 778, 785. 786. 789. 791, 793, 797
AND 856 OF 2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8665 OF 2022:
APHC010591452022
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2
2. Kovvuri Bulli Venkata Lalitha Varalakshmi, W/o.K.V.B.V.Rayala Reddy,
aged about 60 years, Occ;Housewife, R/o.Flat No.1A, Sri Lakshmi
Tulasi Apts., Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondent/Complainant
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.590 of 2017 (FIR Nos.541 of
2014 and 542 of 2014 on the file of the III Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam) on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the
petitioners in C.C.No.590 of 2017 (FIR Nos.541 of 2014 and 542 of 2014 on
the file of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam) on the file of the IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri P.Veerraju
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 842 OF 2023:
APHC010050962023
3
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. Padala Laxmi Tulasi, W/o.Late Padala Rama Krishna Reddy, aged
about 73 years, D. No.74-7-3, Near Ladies Club, Prakash Nagar,
Rajamahendravaram.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.567 of 2017 (FIR No.84 of
2016 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam) on the file of the IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the
petitioners in C.C.No.567 of 2017 (FIR No.84 of 2016 of III Town Police
Station, Visakhapatnam) on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Visakhapatnam.
4
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Srl P.Veerraju
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 911 OF 2023:
APHC010050992023
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd. Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137. Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
3. Teegala Sesha Saila, S/o.Teegala Appala Narasayya Gupta, aged
about 45 years, Vysya by caste. Door No.7-137, Teegala Buildings,
Vizayanagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. Director of
M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd.
4. Teegala V.S.Linga Murthy, S/o.Appala Narasayya Gupta, aged about
44 years, Vysya by caste, Door No.7-137, Teegala Buildings,
Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. Director of
M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd.
5
5. Teegala Venkata Ramanayya, S/o.Chinna Venkataramanayya, aged
about 64 years, Vysya by caste, Door No. 13-69, Opp.ZPP Complex,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
6. Teegala Chaya Devi, W/o.Teegala Appala Narasayya Gupta, aged
about 63 years, Vysya by caste, D.No.7-137, Teegala Buildings,
Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District. Director of
M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd.
7. Teegala Subba Lakshmi @ Subhasini, W/o.Teegala Venkata
Ramanayya, aged about 61 years, Vysya by caste. Door No. 13-59,
Opp.ZPP Complex, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
8. Teegala L.S.Bhaskar, S/o.Teegala Appala Narasayya Gupta, aged
about 43 years, Vysya by caste, D.No.7-137, Teegala Buildings,
Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
9. Teegala Subba Rao, S/o.Teegala Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 37
years, Vysya by caste. Door No. 13-69, Opp.ZPP Complex,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. Mallidi Kasthuri, W/o.(Late) M.N.Reddy, aged about 61 years, D.No.11-
9-23, Daspalla Layout, Visakhapatnam-530 003.
...Respondents
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to quash the C.C.No.554 of 2017 (FIR No.99 of
2016 of III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam) on the file of the IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
6
lA NO: 1 OF 709^
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to dispense with filing of the original certified copy of
C.C.No.554 of 2017 (FIR No.99 of 2016 on the file of III Town Police Station,
Visakhapatnam) on the file of the IV AdditionalJ Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
at Visakhapatnam.
lA NO: 2 OF 909^
Petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including the appearance of the
petitioners in C.C.No.554 of 2017 (FIR No.99 of 2016 on the file of III Town
Police Station, Visakhapatnam) on I the file of the IV Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam.
Counsel for the Petitioners; Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri P.Veerraju
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 777 QF 2022:
APHC010466472022
Between:
7
1.
M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram
Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2.
T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa,
Vizianagaram District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2.
Mallidi Kasturi, W/o.Late M.N.Reddy, aged about 56 years, D.No.11-9-
3, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondent/Petitioner
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC, against the Order,
dated 15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1175 of 2018 in C.C.No.554 of 2017
on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.554 of 2017 on
the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri P.Veerraju
8
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 778 OF 2022:
APHC010466142022
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
TAN.Gupta, aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram
Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road Kothavalasa,
Vizianagaram District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2. Mallidi Kasturi, W/o.Late M.N.Reddy, aged about 56 years, D.No.11-9-
3, Daspalla Hills, Visakhapatnam.
...Respondent/Petitioner
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1178 of 2018 in CC.No.554 of 2017 on the
9
file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.554 of 2017 on
the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2:Sri P.Veerraju
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 785 OF 2022:
APHC010468612022
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram
Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years. R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa
Vizianagaram District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
10
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
... Petitioner/Respondent
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.78 of 2018 in CC.No.567 of 2017 on the file
of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 786 OF 2022:
APHC010468892022
;l
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram
Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years. R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa
Vizianagaram District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
11
The Slate of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
... Petitioner/Respondent
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 r/w 482 of Cr.PC, praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal
Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.79 of 2018 in CC.No.590 of 2017 on the file
of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
Visakhapatnam District.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsei for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 7«9 OF 9000.
APHC010466802022
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
12
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2. Padala Rama Krishna Reddy (Died)
...Respondent/Petitioner
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 r/w 482 of Cr.PC, praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal
Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1176 of 2018 in CC.No.567 of 2017 on the
file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.567 of 2017 on
the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
lA NO: 2 OF 2023
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
13
2. Padala Rama Krishna Reddy (Died)
...Respondents/Respondents
3. Padala Laxmi Tulasi, W/o.Padala Rama Krishna Reddy, aged about 73
years D.No.74-7-3, Near Ladies Club, Prakash Nagar,
Rajamahendravaram.
...Respondent/Proposed Respondent
Petition filed under Section 302 read with Section 482 of Cr.PC praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased to grant leave and permit the petitioners to
bring on record the Third respondent here being the legal representative of the
deceased Second respondent/Complainant as respondent in the above
Criminal Revision Petition No.789 of 2022.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 791 OF 2022:
APHC010468922022
QMS
t
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
14
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2. Khada Gajendra Rao (Died)
...Respondent/Petitioner
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 r/w 482 of Cr.PC, praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal
Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1180 of 2018 in CC.No.590 of 2017 on the
file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.590 of 2017 on
the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
15
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 793 OF 2022:
APHC010468932022
a
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2. Padala Rama Krishna Reddy (Died)
...Respondent/Petitioner
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 r/w 482 of Cr.PC, praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal
Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1181 of 2018 in CC.No.567 of 2017 on the
file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
Counsel for the Petitioners; Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
16
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 797 OF 2022:
APHC010466502022
Between:
1. M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram
Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2. T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years. R/o.D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa,
Vizianagaram District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
... Respondent
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.PC, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.80 of 2018 in CC.No.554 of 2017 on the file
of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.554 of 2017 on
the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
17
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 856 OF 2022:
APHC010494722022
Between:
1.
M/s.T.M.Food Processing Ltd, Represented by it's Managing Director,
T.A.N.Gupta, aged about 77 years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road,
Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram District.
2.
T.A.N.Gupta, S/o.Late T.Chinna Venkata Ramanayya, aged about 77
years, D.No.7-137, Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa, Vizianagaram
District.
...Petitioners/Accused
AND
1.
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by it's Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2.
Khada Gajendra Rao (Died)
...Respondent/Petitioner
Revision filed under Sections 397 and 401 r/w 482 of Cr.PC, praying that
in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal
Revision Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order dated
15-07-2022 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1177 of 2018 in CC.No.590 of 2017 on the
18
file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District.
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in CC.No.590 of 2017 on
the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Assistant Public Prosecutor
The Court made the following:
APHC010591452022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3457]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8665 of 2022. 842 and 911 of 2023
CRL.RC.Nos.777. 778, 785, 786, 789, 791. 793. 797. and 856 of 2022
CRLP.No.8665 OF 2022
Between:
M/s T.M.food Processing Ltd and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT (S)
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused{S):
1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1.PVEERRAJU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
CRLRC.No.777 OF 2022
Between:
M/s T.M.food Processing Ltd. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.P VEERRAJU
2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
II2II
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8665 of 2022. 842 and 911 of 2023
CRL.RC.Nos.777. 778, 785. 786. 789, 791. 793, 797. and 856 of 2022
COMMON ORDER :
1. The criminal petitions are filed seeking quash of CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567
of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Visakhapatnam. The criminal petitions are filed primarily on
the ground that the police on the complaint filed by the 2″^^ respondent after
a lapse of ten years from the date of the alleged offences have registered
cases and filed charge sheets.
2. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
petitioners are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 420,
465, 468, 175 of IPC. It is submitted that when the allegations of forgery
are made, the police ought to have failed to secured the alleged forged
documents during the course of investigation. It is submitted that the police
have not obtained any expert opinion to lay a charge of forgery against the
petitioners. However, the police in the charge sheet have stated that the
original share certificates, share transfer deeds and share transfer
registers are in possession and custody of the accused and that, they
could not be seized as the petitioners have not submitted them to the
police and have concealed them. An adverse inference was drawn that the
//3//
petitioners have committed forgery of documents and the charge sheet ISi
filed.
3. The learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners submits that a
Memorandum Of Understanding dated 26.12.2005 was entered between
SK Big Star Foods Limited, represented by Mr.M.N.Reddy Managing
Director and T.A.N.Gupta (2″‘^ petitioner in CRLP.No.911 of 2023). The first
party therein agreed to transfer 1,50,000 equity shares to the second party
or his nominees on
no value basis. The 2″‘^ petitioner expressed his
intention to take over the company SK Big Star Foods Limited and settle
the OTS Dues to Bank of India.
4. It is submitted that the 2′”‘^ petitioner was appointed as a Director of SK Big
Star Foods Limited on 29.03.2006 and the relevant Form 32 was also filed
before the Registrar of Companies. The annual return of the year 2013
would indicate that the shares were transferred in favour of the 2’^^
petitioner and others. It is also submitted that one K.Trinadha Reddy
claiming himself as the Executive Director of SK Big Star Foods Limited,
had addressed a letter to the Registrar of Companies Hyderabad on
13.09.2013 alleging that the 2″‘^ petitioner and the 5’*^ petitioner have
effected changes in the Constitution of Board of the Company and sought
rectification.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that some of the share
holders filed CP.12 of 2015 and CP.18 of 2016 seeking to rectify the
mil
Register of Members of the Company to reflect the names of petitioners as
the owners of the equity shares which according to them, they were
holding. Both the petitioners were dismissed by the National Company Law
Tribunal, Hyderabad.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that when the shares
were transferred in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding executed
by M.N.Reddy on behalf of SK Big Star Foods Limited during his lifetime.
M.N Reddy passed away on 03.07.2012. The 2″^ respondent could not
have filed a complaint after lapse of more than ten years by relying on the
paper advertisement dated 02.01.2014 relating to transfer of 99.6% of
shares to the 1®’ petitioner. It is claimed that the shareholders of SK Big
Star Foods Limited have informed the 2’^’^ respondent that they had never
transferred any shares to anyone. The 2’^^ respondent has filed a complaint
on 24.04.2016 alleging offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant has
taken inconsistent stands in the complaint and that the charge sheet was
filed before the regular Magistrate Court instead of the Court of Special
Judge for Economic Offences Cases.
8. It is submitted that CP. 17 of 2014 was filed before the National Company
Law Tribunal, Hyderabad seeking to set aside the appointment of
respondents 2, 3 and 4, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 as directors
of the 1®* respondent company therein and other reliefs. The Tribunal had
//5//
disposed the Company Petition by setting aside the appointment of
Directors as prayed for and also set aside the transfer of 1,44,920 shares
which were illegally transferred from the petitioner to respondents 4 to
16 and directed the respondent to rectify the register. It is submitted that
the 2^^ respondent had illegally transferred the shares which was rectified
by an order of the National Company Law Tribunal.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 2″‘^ respondent submits that the
quash petitions filed are not maintainable as they are filed after
commencement of trial and after cross examination of several witnesses. It
is also submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the cognizance
taken order and as such submits that the criminal petitions deserves to be
dismissed.
10. It is also submitted that the orders of the National Company Law Tribunal
were challenged before the Appellate Tribunal by order dated 19.04.2018,
the petitioners were directed not to alienate or transfer any property of the
Appeliant/Company without prior permission of the Appellate Tribunal. The
said direction would also include the shares of the company.
11. The leaned counsel also submits that the petitioners have refused to
submit the original share certificate(s) and have concealed the same with
the intent to defeat the claim of the 2^^ respondent. The investigating
officer also conducted a search on the premises of the accused and could
not lay his hands on the alleged forged documents. It is also submitted
//6//
that the police have completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet
by categorically ascertaining the involvement of the petitioners in
commission of the offences and the petitioners have to undergo trial and
prove their innocence before the trial Court.
12. It is submitted that there are several facts which are involved which would
have to be determined by the trial Court after a full-fledged trial. It is also
submitted that when several questions of fact are involved, the petitioners
cannot seek quash of the case and as such prays for dismissing the
petitions.
13. The learned counsel for the 2’^^ respondent had places reliance on
Sethuraman Vs. Rajanickam ^, Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the
orders passed in interlocutory applications passed in petitions filed under
Section 311,91 and 243(2) of Cr.P.C., ought not to be interfered with. This
judgment is relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2’^^ respondent to
submit that the criminal revision cases are not maintainable. Kaptan
Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others^, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that while entertaining the quash petitions the High Court is not
required to go into the merits of the allegations or decide on the merits as
the High Court is not exercising the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and
^ (2009) 5 see 153
^2017) 14 see 809
M2021)9 See35
ini!
that inherent jurisdiction of the High Court has been exercised squaringly
and in exceptionalcases.
14. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor the State and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused
the material on record.
15. The police have filed the charge sheet by concluding that the accused
have denied to furnish the share certificates and evidently the police have
not made any effort to investigate into the allegation of forgery. The
allegedly forged document was not collected by the police during the
course of investigation. Adverse inference as drawn against the petitioners
by the police in the charge sheet for laying the charge sheet against the
accused for the offence under section 468 of IPC cannot sustain without
the allegedly forged document sent to the FSL for Expert Opinion. In the
absence of such an exercise the police could not have laid a charge sheet
against the accused for the offence under Section 468 of IPC.
16. In criminal jurisprudence adverse inference cannot be drawn against the
accused for nonproduction of the alleged forged document. Adverse
inference in absence of the allegedly forged document which is not seized
as
a material object by the police during the course of investigation IS
unsustainable. In a criminal case when the prosecution alleges forgery and
cheating the burden heavily lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In absence of the prosecution failing
//8//
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and filing the
charge sheet by drawing adverse inference cannot sustain the scrutiny of
law and logic.
17. This Court places reliance on Uniworth Textiles Limited Vs.
Commissioner of Central Exercise^ the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at
para 24 is as follows ;
24. Further, we are not convinced with the finding of the
Tribunal which placed the onus of providing evidence in support
of bona fide conduct, by observing that “the appellants had not
brought anything on record” to prove their claim of bona fide
conduct, on the appellant. It is a cardinal postulate of law that
the burden of proving any form of mala fides lies on the
shoulders of the one alleging it. This Court observed in Union of
India v. Ashok Kumar [(2005) 8 SCC 760 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 47]
that: (SCC p. 770, para 21)
“21. … It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing
mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The
allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than
proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands
proof of a high order of credibility. “
18. Ranjit Kumar Haidar Vs. State of Sikkim^, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held at paras 13 and 14 is as follows ;
13. The general rule is that the burden of proof is on the
prosecution. Section 106 of the Act was introduced not to
relieve the prosecution of their duty but it is designed to meet
the situation in which it would be impossible or difficult for the
prosecution to establish facts which are especially within the
knowledge of the accused.
14. In Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [Shambu Nath
Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794],
the Court held as under: (AIR p. 406, paras 10-11 & 13)”(2013) 9 see 753
= (2019) 7 see 684
//9//“10. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101
lays down the general rule about the burden of proof.
101. Burden of proof–Whoever desires any court to give
Judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those
facts exist. ‘Illustration (a) says–
‘A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for
a crime which A says B has committed.
A must prove that B has committed the crime. ‘
11. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the
burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is
certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it
is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would
be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the
prosecution to establish facts which are “especially” within the
knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without
difficulty or inconvenience.
The word “especially” stresses that. It means facts that are pre
eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section
were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very
startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the
accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because
who could know better than he whether he did or did not.
It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy
Council has twice refused to construe this section, asreproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the
burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not
commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are
Attygalle v. R. [Attygalle v. R., 1936 SCC OnLine PC 20 : AIR
1936 PC 169] and Stephen Seneviratne v. R. [Stephen
Seneviratne v. R., 1936 SCC OnLine PC 57 : (1936) 3 All ER
36, 49]
//10//
13. We recognise that an illustration does not exhaust the full
content of the section which it illustrates but equally it can
neither curtail nor expand its ambit; and if knowledge of certain
facts is as much available to the prosecution, should it choose
to exercise due diligence, as to the accused, the facts cannot
be said to be “especially” within the knowledge of the accused.
This is a section which must be considered in a commonsense
way; and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of
the labour that would be involved in finding out and proving
certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake
and the ease with which the accused could prove them, are all
matters that must be taken into consideration. The section
cannot be used to undermine the well-established rule of law
that, save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on
the prosecution and never shifts. ”
19. Maya Gopinathan Vs. Anoop S.B.and Another®, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held at para 20 is as follows ;
20. Law is well-settled that inference from the evidence and
circumstances must be carefully distinguished from
conjectures or speculation. Since the mind is prone to take
pleasure to adapt circumstances to one another and even in
straining them a little to force them to form parts of one
connected whole, there must be evidence direct or
circumstantial – to deduce necessary inferences in proof of the
facts in issue. There can be no inferences unless there are
objective facts, direct or circumstantial, from which to infer the
other fact which it is sought to establish. In some cases, the
other facts can be inferred, as much as is practical, as if they
had been actually observed. In other cases, the inferences do
not go beyond reasonable probability. If there are no positive
proved facts – oral, documentary, or circumstantial – from
which the inferences can be drawn, the method of inference
would fail and what would remain is mere speculation or
conjecture. Therefore, when drawing an inference of proof that
a fact in dispute is held to be established, there must be some
material facts or circumstances on record from which such an
inference could be drawn. In civil cases including matrimonial
®2024 see Online SC 609
//11//
disputes of a civil nature, the standard of proof is not proof
beyond reasonable doubt ‘but’ the preponderance of
probabilities tending to draw an inference that the fact must be
more probable.
20. Chunni Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh^, the Hon’ble Suprmee Court
held at para 25 is as follows ;
25. It is well settled that in any criminal case, the burden of
proof is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt in order to secure conviction of the accused,
that is to say that no reasonable doubt can be said to have
arisen in the judicial mind of the court after appreciating the
evidence presented, and the outcome reached by the
prosecution is the only possible outcome in the given facts and
circumstances of the case.
This legal position is necessary for both the ingredients of
‘actus reus” and “mens rea”. though “mens rea can
sometimes be inferred from the nature of “actus reus”, and as
far as “mens rea” is concerned, intention or guilty knowledge is
certainly the most important facet.
21.
The law on the burden of proof is unambiguous and crystal
clear, the prosecution has failed to discharge the statutory duty of
establishing the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The concept of
burden of proof in such criminal proceedings is not a mere formality, it
is a statutory obligation.
22. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view
that CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567 of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the file of
IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam deserve
to be quashed, accordingly the criminal petitions are allowed.
‘ 2025 see Online SC 955
//12//
23.
The Criminal revision cases are offshoots of the proceedings in
the CC’s pending before the trial court, now that this Court has
quashed the CC.Nos.590 of 2017, 567 of 2017 and 554 of 2017 on the
file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam,
the CRLRC.Nos. 777, 778, 785, 786, 789, 791, 793, 797, and 856 of
2022 are hereby closed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/- K TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam,
Visakhapatnam District. (Records if any)
2. The Station House Officer, III Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam
Visakhapatnam District.
3. One CC to Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri P.Veerraju, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati [OUT]
6. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
7. Two CD Copies
BSV
sree
20
HIGH COURT
DATED:10/07/2025
COMMON ORDER
CRLP NOS. 8665 OF 2022, 842 AND 911 OF 2023
CRLRC NOS.777, 778, 785, 786, 789, 791, 793, 797
AND 856 OF 2022
5 JUL 2025 I
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITIONS AND
CLOSING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASES
[ad_2]
Source link