Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar Agrawal @ Sunil Agrawal vs The State Of Bihar on 17 January, 2025
Author: Anjani Kumar Sharan
Bench: Anjani Kumar Sharan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8131 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2529 Year-2020 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL @ SUNIL AGRAWAL S/o Late Ramavtar
Agrawal R/o 9/4, 3rd Floor, Madhuban Apartment, Pitampura, P.S.- Rani
Bagh, New Delhi 110034.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Dilip Kumar Tribrewal @ Dilip Kumar S/o Late Satya Narayan Prasad R/o
Opp. Chandan Automobiles Workshop, P.S.- Kankarbagh, Distt- Patna.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prakash Chandra Agrawal, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 17-01-2025
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409,
419, 420, 467, 468, 477 (A) and 120 (B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3(1). As per the FIR, the prosecution story, in brief,
is that, the complainant is the founder of M/s Aqua Fine Agro
Industries, which was established in 1989. Later on, in the year
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
2/11
2004, the firm was registered as a company in the name of
Indigo Steel Pvt. Ltd. It is further alleged that the complainant
being the chief promoter, with his heavy investment and long
earned skills, established and promoted the business of the
company. As he has less knowledge with regard to paper work,
so he made his close aide Ramavtar Agarwal and Arun Kumar
Agarwal as Director in 1993, and when Arun Kumar Agarwal
resigned, Sunil Kumar Agarwal (the petitioner), became
Director of the Company. On 1st April, 2012, Ramavtar Agarwal
retired and before his retirement, the complainant was inducted
as Director of the company and formulated the resolution in this
regard. Prior to, Ramavtar Agarwal’s resignation, on the same
day, the complainant became Additional Director of the
company by signing a consent letter in this regard and handed
over to the petitioner for filing the said discussion of board
meeting of the company before the ROC, but he did not submit
the said board resolution to the ROC.
3(2). It is further alleged that 89,100 Nos. @ Rs. 10
per share were also transferred by Ramavtar Agarwal in the
name of the complainant by signing and executing a transferred
Deed of shares, but the petitioner did not file return to ROC
rather he got the shares transferred in the name of his wife.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
3/11
Petitioner and his wife filed Director Appointment Form 12 in
the name of Ramavtar Agrawal who died on 25.12.2012. The
balance sheet of 2013-14 shows the signature of Ramavtar
Agarwal even though he died in 2012. Further, petitioner got
55000 shares of Shakuntla Devi Agarwal transferred in his
wife’s name and has filed fake resignation letter of Ramavtar
Agrawal in 2014.
3(3). The accused persons are said to have
misappropriated an amount of Rs. 87,60,000/- and sold all the
stocks, fixed assets and grabbed an amount of Rs. One Crore,
and showed ‘Nil’ in the Balance sheet.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no
offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has
been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The
allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and
based on concocted facts. It is further submitted that as the
complainant alleged that he was the founder of the company
and through his own efforts and hard work, he had acquired the
business and started a steel trading processing unit in name of
M/s Aqua Fine Agro Industries, then he must have sales tax
Registration/ Factory Registration/ Labour Registration.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
4/11
Complainant has no proof regarding ownership/partnership
deed in this Company from 1989 to 31.12.1993. If the
complainant is the chief promoter and he has done heavy
investment in the company, then he must have done payments
transaction through Cheque/DD, but complainant has not filed
such documents. The present case is a counter-blast of
Complaint Case No. 1937 of 2020 in which Anil Kumar
Agarwal, who is own brother of the petitioner. The petitioner
has not got his wife appointed as Director of the Company by
using his own digital signature and misusing his power as a
Chairman. The complainant has lodged the present complaint
after lapse of several years, which creates doubt about the
prosecution case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as
mentioned in para-3 of this application. He further submits
there is no specific overt act against the petitioner.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that if the complainant was aggrieved by the
actions of the petitioner or his wife, or his son, all three of
whom have been made accused in the Complaint Case, the
complainant should have moved to the appropriate forum i.e.
NCLT rather filing the Complaint Case No. 2529(C)/2020 and
giving a criminal angle to a purely civil dispute between the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
5/11
parties. He further submits that both the Companies Act, 1956
and the Companies Act, 2013 are a self-contained code and
provide adequate punishment/penalties to be imposed in case
of contravention of any of its provisions. The complainant has
filed the Complaint Case only to harass and put pressure on the
petitioner and his wife. He further submits that Shri Anil
Kumar Agrawal has set up the complainant to steer clear from
any allegation that the dispute is in essence between two
brothers. Therefore, a third party with a questionable identity
and one who is an employee of Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal has
been set up as the complainant in Complaint Case No.
2529(C)/2020.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that Dilip Kumar Tibrewal, the complainant in
Complaint Case No. 2529(C)/2020 has been associated with
Anil Kumar Agrawal since the past 15 years and is currently
deputed at Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal’s Tanishq Showroom at
Muzaffarpur. Dilip Kumar Tibrewal is also a shareholder with
19.56% stake in Exclusive Stores Pvt. Ltd. in which Shri Anil
Kumar Agrawal’s son namely Saksham Agrawal is a Director.
Dilip Kumar Tibrewal’s two sons are working at Shri Anil
Kumar Agrawal’s Tanishq Showroom at Patna. He further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
6/11
submits that Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal and Shri Arun Agrawal
are first Directors of M/S. Indigo Steels Pvt. Ltd and
petitioner’s name is not mentioned as Director. There is no
record with the ROC regarding as to when the petitioner was
made Director.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the identity of Dilip Kumar Tibrewal is
questionable because at some places the said Dilip Kumar
Tibrewal has given his father’s name as Satyanarayan Prasad,
while at certain places, a different identity is given. For
example, in the complaint petition, the name of the
complainant is Dilip Kumar Tibrewal and father’s name is
mentioned as Satyanarayan Prasad. In the Annual Return
(Annexure 2 to the bail application) and Mgt-1 of M/S. Indigo
Steels Pvt. Ltd., it is mentioned as Dilip Kumar and father P.
Kumar. He further submits that all the addresses given by the
complainant are actually joint family properties of the Agrawal
family where a partition dispute is going on between the
petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal. He further submits
that the partition case is registered as 311/2019 with filing
number 1947/2019 and the said partition suit is still pending. In
short, all the properties mentioned are actually family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
7/11
properties of the Agrawal group. He further submits that the
residential address given by the petitioner in the complaint
petition viz., Opposite Chandan Automobiles, Kankarbagh,
Patna is actually a property registered in the name of Saksham
Agrawal, i.e., son of Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal. He further
submits that the complainant has actually been set up by Shri
Anil Kumar Agrawal to exert pressure on the petitioner to
withdraw all cases filed against him. The main aim of Shri Anil
Kumar Agrawal is to divest everyone from the joint family
business and properties and usurp everything alone as he is the
one who had been handling everything and was in control of all
the businesses.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner lastly
submits that as per the Deed of Absolute sale dated 10.12.2014,
it is Saksham Agrawal son of Anil Kumar Agrawal, who is the
owner of the Kankarbagh property which the complainant has
shown as his residential address in the complaint petition which
again raises questions and doubts with regard to his identity
coupled with the facts that in the copy of Aadhaar Card
attached by the complainant to the replies filed on his behalf,
the address is that of Muzaffarpur which again substantiate the
petitioner’s contention that the complainant is working at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
8/11
Tanishq Showroom, Muzaffarpur which is owned by Anil
Kumar Agrawal and, therefore, the complainant with a
questionable identity has been set up by Anil Kumar Agrawal.
9. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
Senior Counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer for bail
and submit that under conspiracy, all the accused persons
including the petitioner committed fraud and executed their plan
of defrauding the complainant by misusing and abusing the
power of the petitioner as Director/Chairman/Authorised
Signatory with spiteful and malicious intention towards the
company and the complainant. They grabbed the entire funds
and assets, furniture and fixtures of the company by taking the
advantage of low literacy of the complainant.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant
further submits that the petitioner has again given false
statement in his application that no money has been transferred
to him, whereas it is very much clear from the statement of the
bank account that Rs.32,50,000/- has been transferred to the
bank account of M/s World Time, New Delhi and his wife is
operating/managing the said firm. He further submits that
complainant has started his business in the year 1989 in the
name and style of M/s Aqua Fine Agro Industries along with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
9/11
father of the petitioner. In 1993, the said firm was registered as a
company with the registrar of the companies as Aqua Fine Agro
Industries Pvt. Ltd in which Ramavtar Agrawal (father in law)
and his son Arun Kumar Agrawal were also joined as director.
In 1996, Arun Kumar Agrawal resigned from the company and
the petitioner joined as a director of the company. In the year
2004, the name of the company in question has been changed as
M/s Indigo Steels Pvt. Ltd. and father of the petitioner namely
Ramavtar Agrawal and the petitioner were also a share holder in
the company. In the year 2012, Ramavtar Agrawal resigned
from the company due to his ill health and transferred his 89100
Nos. Shares to the complainant and appointed complainant as
director by passing resolution on 02.04.2012 in the board
meeting of the company. He further submits that all the
document were handed over to the petitioner to submit it in the
office of Registrar of the Companies but the petitioner did not
submit the document with the office of the registrar of the
companies with malafide intention.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant
further submits that having ulterior motive and intention to
cheat the complainant, petitioner conspired with his wife and
transferred the shares in his wife’s name and became the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
10/11
director in the company which was the property of the
complainant as the major shares were transferred by the father
of the petitioner in the name of the complainant. He further
submits that the father of the petitioner died on 25.12.2012, but
the petitioner filed his resignation on 30.09.2014 by making his
false signature after his death and transferred his shares in the
name of his wife.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainant
further submits that the petitioner is directly involved in the
entire episode of fraud and conspired with his wife by
transferring the company’s shares belonging to the complainant
in his wife’s name and declared her director in the company,
thereafter, the petitioner’s wife has transferred huge funds of the
company to the bank account of her another firm situated in
Delhi. The petitioner did not file the necessary documents which
he ought to have filed in the office of the Registrar of
Companies in due time which was signed by the former director
Ramavatar Agrawal clearly shows that the entire game was
played by the petitioner and his wife with a view to grab the
entire assets of the company after the death of Mr. Ramavtar
Agrawal.
13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8131 of 2023 dt.17 -01-2025
11/11
the case as well as the argument of the parties, it is clear that the
complainant had not moved before the appropriate forum i.e.
N.C.L.T. rather filed the present complaint case against the
petitioner and also the fact that the identity of the complainant is
itself doubtful as he has given his father’s name as Satyanarayan
Prasad in the present Complaint Case and in the Annual Return
and Mgt-1 of M/S. Indigo Steels Pvt. Ltd., his father’s name is
mentioned as P. Kumar, and there is no specific overt act against
the petitioner in this case. So, let the above named petitioner, be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor Court in connection with Complaint Case
No. 2529(C) of 2020, subject to the condition as laid down
under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 06.12.2024 Uploading Date 17.01.2025 Transmission Date 17.01.2025