Supreme Court of India
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMIversusK.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 334
- Decided
- 9 May 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of the court and quashed them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Summary
The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement in which the appellant, Chandran Ratnaswami, alleged that the respondent, K.C. Palanisamy, misappropriated Rs.75 crore and transferred assets improperly. The matter was finally resolved by the Company Law Board and upheld by the Madras High Court, which ordered repayment and transfer of ownership. Despite this, the respondent filed multiple criminal complaints alleging breach of contract and conspiracy, leading to FIR No.7 of 2007 and subsequent reinvestigation ordered by a Superintendent of Police. The Supreme Court examined whether the continuation of these criminal proceedings, after the civil dispute had been adjudicated, constituted an abuse of process. Relying on the doctrine of abuse of process and the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court held that the criminal proceedings were a misuse of the judicial process intended to harass the appellants and deprive them of liberty. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process and allowed the appeals, while dismissing other related appeals.
Issues considered
- The continuance of criminal proceedings arising from a civil dispute already adjudicated constitutes an abuse of process of the court.
- Whether the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings.
- Whether the police reinvestigation and issuance of non‑bailable warrants were lawful.
- The extent to which the complainant’s conduct amounts to harassment and misuse of the judicial process.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Section 159, s. Section 203, s. Section 482
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 142, s. Article 21
Subjects
abuse of processSection 482 CrPCcivil disputecriminal proceedingsjoint venture agreementquashing of FIRpolice powersinherent jurisdictioncontemptnon‑bailable warrantArticle 21
Judgment
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 853
. CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI
v.
K.C. PALANISAMY AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4540 of 2013)
MAY 09, 2013 B
[P. SATHASIVAM AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 136 & 142 -
Quashing of criminal proceedings, when warranted - Bar on .
trial when abuse of process of court - Duty and· obligation of C
the criminal court to exercise great deal of caution in issuing
process, particularly when matters are essentially of civil
nature - Held: In the instant case, neither the High Court nor
the Magisterial Court everapplied their mind and considered
the conduct of the complainant and continuance of criminal D
proceedings in respect of the disp1.1tes, which were civil in
. nature and finaily adjudicated by the competent authority i.e.
.c the Company Law Board and the High Court in appeal - The
complainant indulged in repeated harassment of the accused
persons by initiating multiple criminal proceedings in order E
to distract attention from his own misdeeds - The complainant
manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to
deprive the accused party from their basic right to move free
anywhere im~ide or outside the country - It would be unfair if
the accused were to be tried in such criminal proceedings. F
arising out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement
especially when such disputes have been finally resolved by
the Court of competent jurisdiction - Hence, a/lowjng the
criminal proceedings to continue would be an abuse -of the .
process of the Court and, therefore, for the ends of justice G
such proceedings ought to be quashed - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
Investigation - In Cognizable offence - Power of Police
85.3 H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R.
A Officers - Held: Is not unlimited - Power during investigation
must be exercised strictly within the limitation prescribed in
CrPC and such power may not result in destroying the
personal freedom of a citizen - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
B
Disputes between the parties with regard to alleged
breach of a Joint Venture Agreement were finally
adjudicated by the Company Law Board which order was
upheld by the High Court in appeal. However, instead of
C complying with the order of the Company Law Board and
the directions issued by the High Court, the judgment-
debtor in the decision of the Company Law Board i.e.
respondent no.1 in civil appeal arising out of S.L.P (C)
N!>.13120 of 2013 filed a series of criminal complaints
against the appella~~ therein.
0
It is alleged that the criminal cases filed by the said
respondent no.1 were frivolous, which were either
quashed or stayed by the Court; that a purely civil matter
arising out of a company dispute which had attained
E finality had been given the colour of a criminal act with
the sole objective of avoiding civil liability and
pressurizing and harassing the said appellant; and that
the conduct of said respondent no.1 was contemptuous
amounting to deliberate obstruction of the judicial
F proceedings and an abuse of the process of the Court.
In the instant appeals, the question which, therefore,
arose for consideration was whether continuance of
criminal proceedings against the said appellant was an
abuse of the process of the Court, and thus liable to be
G quashed.
Disposing of the appeals and the contempt petition,
the Court
H HELD:1.1. The doctrine of abuse of process of court
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 855
and the remedy of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is A
well-established and recognized doctrine both by the
English courts and courts in India. There are some
established principles of law which bar the trial when
there appears to be abuse of process of court. [Para 29]
[886-E-F] B
1.2. An abuse of process justifying the stay of
prosecution could arise in the following circumstances:
(i) where it would be impossible to give the accused a fair
trial; or (ii) where it would amount to misuse/manipulation C
of process because it offends the court's sense of justice
and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the
circumstances of the particular case. [Para 31] [887-C-E]
1.3. The wholesome power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it D
comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to ·~·
continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court
or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been
invested with inherent powers, both in civil and criminal E
matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into
a weapon of harassment or persecution. The ends of
justice are higher than the ends of mere law though
justice must be administered according to laws made by F
the legislature. [Para 34] [888-B-D]
1.4. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims,
which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying
pressure through criminal prosecution should be
deprecated and discouraged. It is the duty" and obligation G
of the cri.minal court to exercise a great deal of caution
in issuing the process, particularly when matters are
essentially of civil nature. [Paras 37, 39) [890-G; 892-B]
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy and Others (1977)
2 SCC 699: 1977 (3) SCR 113; State of Haryana and Others
VS. Bhajan Lal and Others 1992 Supp. (1) sec 335: 1990
(3) Suppl. SCR 259; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and
Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another (2005) 1 SCC
B 122: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 790; Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC
India Ltd. and Others (2006) 6 SCC 736: 2006 (3) Suppl.
SCR 704; lnder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of
Uttaranchal and Others (2007) 12 SCC 1: 2007 (10 ) SCR
847; G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others
c (2000) 2 SCC 636: 2000 (1) SCR 417; S. N. Sharma vs.
Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Others AIR 1970 SC 786: 1970 (3)
SCR 946; State of West Bengal and Others vs. Swapan
Kumar Guha and Others AIR 1982 SC 949: 1982 (3) SCR
121; Uma Shankar Gopalika vs, State of Bihar and Another
D (2005) 10 SCC 3;J6 - relied on.
Connelly vs. Director of Public Prosecutions (1964) 2 All
ER 401 (HL); Hui Chi-Ming vs. The Queen (1992) 1 AC 34
(PC); Bennett vs. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court (1993)
3 All ER 138; R. vs. Derby Crown Court exp Brooks (1985)
E 80 Cr. App. R. 164; R. vs. Beckford, (1996) 1 Cr.App.R. 94:
1995 R.T.R. 251 - referred to.
2.1. In the instant case, the dispute arising out of
Joint Venture Agreement has been fully and finally settled
F by the Company Law Board and also the High Court and
several directions were issued for compliance including
the return of the amount by respondent No.1 to the
appellant and to become the. sole owner of those
companies. [Para 50] [896-G]
G . 2.2. In order to justify the action of the Superintendent
· of Police in directing the investigation, it was submitted
that on the instruction of Inspector General of Police such
reinvestigation was directed by the Superintendent of
Police.' However, no such letter of instruction has been
H produced before this Court. The power of Police Officers
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 857
in the field of investigation of a cognizable offence is not A
unlimited. Hence, the power during the investigation
must be· exercisei;f strictly within the limitation prescribed
in the Code of Crimina~ Procedure and such power may
not result in destroying the personal freedom of a citizen.
[Para 51] [897-B-C] B
2.3. After the dispute was finally settled by the
Company Law Board and the High Court in appeal, the
respondent approached the Economic Offences Wing,
who refused to entertain the complaint. The respondent c
then moved the. complaint before the Judicial Magistrate,
Perundurai .for initiating criminal action against the
appellant for breach of contract, which was dismissed by
the Magistrate holding the same as nothing but to take
. vengeance, The Magistrate further held that if the
D
conditions of the agreement are violated the respondent
has to seek remedy under the Contract Act or the
Company Law instead of filing criminal case.
Suppressing the said complaint and the order passed by
the Magistrate, the respondent tried again by filing a
complaint befo·re the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam for · E
initiating criminal action against the appellants for the
breach of contract and conspiracy. Although the FIR was
registered, but a closure report as a mistake of fact was
prepared. The High Court wliile passing the order
observed that the Court would frown upon the conduct F
of the complainant in indulging in repeated harassment
of the petitioners-appellants. Irrespective of the dispute
with regard to the closure of the case, a fresh life was
given to the criminal case at the instance of
Superintendent of Police, who directed re-investigation
and in course oUhe said criminal proceeding irrespective
of FIR No.7/2007 the appellants were harassed and on
technicalities various orders for surrender, arrest and
their detention had been, passed. In the three writ
petitions filed by respondent No.1, though not against the H.
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R
A appellant but against the C.B.I. in respect of different
transactions, the High Court dismissing all those writ
petitions observed that the modus operandi of the writ
petitioner (respondent No.1) was to defraud the person
or entity and thereafter approach the Courts with multiple
B proceedings in order to distract attention from his own
misdeeds. [Para 52] [897~0-H; 898-A-C]
2.4. Neither the High Court nor the Magisterial Court
have ever applied their mind and considered the conduct
C of the respondent and continuance of criminal
proceedings in respect of the disputes, which are civil in
nature and finally adjudicated by the competent authority
i.e. the Company Law Board and the High Court in appeal.
[Para 53] [898-D] '
D 2.5. The complainant has manipulated and misused
the process of Court so as to deprive the appellants from
their basic right io move free anywhere inside or outside
the country. Moreover, it would be unfair if the appellants
are to be tried in such criminal proceedings arising out
E of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement
especially when such disputes have been finally resolved
by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, allowing
the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.7 of 2007
to continue would be an abuse of the process of the
F Court and, therefore, for the ends of justice such
pro~eedings ought to be quashed. Since the High Court
failed to look into this aspect of the matter while passing
the impugned order, the same could not be sustained in
law. [Para 54] [898-E-G]
G State of Bihar & Another vs. J.A. C. Saldanna and Others
AIR 1980 SC 326: 1980 (2) SCR 16 - cited.
Case Law Reference:
1980 (2) SCR 16 cited Para 26
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 859
(1964) 2 All ER 401 (HL) referred to Para 29 A
(1992) 1 AC 34 (PC referred to Para 30
(1993) 3 All ER 138 referred to Para 31
(1985) 80 Cr. App. R. 164 referred to Para 32
B
(1996) 1 Cr. App. R. 94 referred to Para 33
1977 (3) SCR 113 relied on Para 34
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 relied on Para 35
c
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 790 relied on Para 36
2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 704 relied on Para 37
2007 (10) SCR 847 relied on Para 38
2000 (1) SCR 417 relied on Para 39 ; D
1970 (3) SCR 946 relied on Para 40
1982 (3) SCR 121 relied on Para 41
(2005) 1o sec 336 relied on Para 42 E
CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil
Appeal No. 4540 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.03.2013 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 517 of 2013. F
WITH
Crl. A. Nos. 736-737, 731-733 and 734-735 of 2013 and C.A.
Nos. 4537-4538 of 2013 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 166
of 2013 in SLP (Crl.) No. 9853 of 2010. G
Subramonium Prasad, AAG, E.C. Agrawala, Mahalakshmi
Balaji & Co., M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumaran, Sasi Kala,
Senthil Jagadessan for the appearing parties.
H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Since common questions of law are involved, these
appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of
B by this common judgment. However, for the sake of
convenien.ce, the factual matrix giving rise to these cases as
alleged in the civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 13120 of
2013 is set out hereinafter.
c 3. The appellant - Chand ran Ratnaswami, alleged to have
settled in Canada since 1974, is an officer of Hamblin Watsa
Investment Counsel, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fairfax
Financial Holdings Limited (in short, "Fairfax") which is based
in Canada and has also made investments in India worth more
0 than USO 1 billion. The said appellant is also a Director ori the
Boards of various renowned companies including ORE
Holdings Limited (in short, "ORE"), a Fairfax Group company,
based in Mauritius, and has to travel to India on business
commitments. The said holding. company, ORE on 30th
•E January, 2004 entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA)
with CG Holdings Private Limited (respondent No. 1 - K.C.
Palanisamy's company) and N. Athappan (a Singapore citizen)
for constructing and developing a hotel property, a shopping
complex and an IT Park of the properties owned by Cherraan
Properties Limited (CPL) and Vasantha Mills Limited (VML)
F (respondent No.1's companies). ORE invested Rs.75 crores
and got 45% in Cheran Enterprises Private Limited (CEPL).
N. Athappan invested Rs. 4 crores and got 10% in CEPL. Jt is
alleged that as CPL and VML have immovable assets,
respondent No. 1 transferred shares of CPL and VML to CEPL
G instead of bringing money and got 45% share holding in CEPL.
Respondent No. 1 is alleged to have swindled the said Rs. 75 ·
crores that was deposited in the bank account contrary to the
JVA and transferred the immovable assets of CPL and VML, .
subsidiaries of CEPL. Thereupon, ORE filed Company Petition
H No. 76 of 2005 before the Company Law Board, Additional
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 861
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
Principal Bench, Chennai (in short, "the CLB") on account of A
the alleged acts of oppression and mismanagement indulged
in by respondent No. 1. The Company Law Board by order
dated 13th August, 2008 directed respondent No. 1, CG
Holdings Private Limited and CEP-1... to return the investment of
ORE and N. Athappan amounting to Rs. 79 crores with· 8% B
interest within one year, failing which the land of VML was to
be transferred to ORE and N. Athappan. It was directed that
once the aforementioned amount is paid, respondent No. 1
would take control of CEPL and its subsidiaries. The Company
Law Board held as under: · c
"17. In view of the foregoing conclusions and in exercise
of the powers under Sections 397 & 398 read with Section
402.and with a view to bringing to an end the grievances
. -of CG Holdings, KCP, ORE and Athappan, the following
order is passed: D .
CEPL shail return a sum of Rs. 75 crores and Rs. 4 crores
, invested by ORE and Athappan respectively, together with
simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date
of investment till the date of repayment within a period of E
12 months in one or more instalments, commencing from
01.11.2008. While makir19 the payment CEPL, CG
Holdings and KCP shall ensure that at least 25% of the
amount due is paid in every quarter. CEPL CG Holdings
and KCP are at liberty to make use of the fixed deposit . F
held by CEPL with the SBI, Erode Main Branch, free of
any liens or encumbrances lowards refund of the
investments of ORE and Athappan. VML shall not alienate
or sell any of its immoveable properties till full payment is
made to ORE, in terms of this order.Jn the event of any
failure to make the repayment within the specified time, G
CEPL CG Holdings, KCP and VML will duly convey the
immovable properties of VML, namely, 17.15 acres of land
in favour of ORE and 7.80 acres of land in favour of
Athappan by executing and registering necessary deeds
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A of conveyance in strict compliance with all applicable laws,
as consideration for reduction of capital and surrender·of
the shares of ORE and Athappan, upon which ORE as well
as Athappan will deliver the share certificates and blank
transfer forms in respect of their holdings in CEPL and the
B subsidiaries, if any, in favour of CG Holdings and KCP.
CEPL is consequently authorized to reduce its share
capital and in the meantime, operation of the impugned
agreements is suspended, to expedite and ensure due
completion of the modalities of exit by ORE and Athappan,
c thereby, bringing to an end the acts complained of in the
present proceedings. CEPL shall ensure necessary
statutory compliances till the whole process, in accordance
with the aforesaid directions, is properly completed. The
parties are at liberty to apply in the event of any difficulty
in implementation of the smooth exist of ORE and
D
Athappan from CEPL."
4. Cross appeals were filed by the parties before the High
Court of Judicature at Madras and the High Court vide order
dated 5th August, 2011 confirmed the order dated 13th August,
E 2008 passed by the CLB, in the following terms:
"54. On analysis of various aspects, Company Law Board
concluded that it was no longer possible for the parties to
carry out joint venture business of CEPL as per the terms
F of JVA. Only to have smooth exit of ORE and Athappan,
the Company Law Board passed the order directing CEPL
to repay Rs. 75 Crores and Rs. 4 Crores invested by ORE
Holdings and Athappan respectively. By perusal of the
order of Company Law Board, in our considered view,
Company Law Board has elaborately gone into the issues
G
arisen between the parties even though those objections
were filed under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies
Act. As demonstrated infra, there are commonality of
issues raised in both the Company Petitions, O.S. No.90
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 863
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
of 2007 and the petition filed before l.C.C. seeking for A
arbitration.
55. Criminal Cases:- The learned counsel for appellants
Mr. Karthik Seshadri contended that the purport of the
criminal proceedings are different and initiating of criminal B
complaints does not amount to waiver of arbitration. Of
course, a party does not waive his right to invoke
arbitration by filing criminal complaints: But what is relevant
is the allegations in the plethora of criminal complaints filed
at the instance of the appellants/father of KCP/ C
respondents. Both parties have made serious allegations
of cheating, forgery, falsification of records, etc., against
one another. Even before the arbitral Tribunal, the same
allegations are made. The Honourable Supreme Court and
the Madras High Court have held that the arbitration is not
the appropriate forum if allegations of fraud, D
misappropriation and complicated facts are involved.
xxx xxx xxx
84. By a careful reading of the order of Company Law E
Board in C.P. Nos.65 and 76 of 2005, it is clear that the
alleged breach of Clause 9.2 has been elaborately dealt
with. Company Law Board dealt with not only the issues
pertaining to the oppression and mismanagement of
CEPL aQ.d also the larger issues arising between the
F
parties. Only to ensure smooth exit of ORE and Athappan,
the order dated 13.8.2008 came to be passed by the
Company Law Board. It is pertinent to note that KCP had
not challenged the said order of Company Law Board.
xxx xxx xxx G
112. As pointed out earlier, several criminal cases have
been filed and number of quash petitions also came to be
filed. Of course a party does not waive his right to invoke
the arbitration of the dispute by filing of criminal complaints. H
864 SUPREME COURT Ri::PORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R.
A When a party deliberately chooses not to adopt a particular
course of action, the arbitration agreement becomes
inoperative and as the parties have waived or abandoned
the arbitration clause, by invoking the jurisdiction of Civil
Court, the doctrine of wavier applies. The appellants had
B the option to go before ICC even in 2005 but the appellants
chose to file C.P. No.65 of 2005 and also stoutly defended
C.P. No.76 of 2005 filed by ORE Holdings. Even in C.P.
No.76 of 2005, the appellants have not sought for reference
to arbitration. By agitating t~e matter before the Company
c law Board for nearly two years, and filing the Civil Suit in
O.S. No.90 of 2007 before District Munsif's Court,
Kangeyam, by their conduct the appellants must be
deemed to have given a go bye to the arbitration clause.
113 .. The parties have been engaged in pitched battle
D before the Company Law Bd"ard and orders were passed
by the Company Law Board on 13.8.2008. When the
matter was pending before the Company Law Board, the
Company Law Board has passed interim orders at various .
stages. The learned counsel for plaintiffs would submit that
E even settlements/proposals have been made disclosing
parties intentions and discovery process has been utilized.
We find much force in the contention of the respondents
that Athappans and Ore have spent consideration time
and. money before the Company Law Board. In so far as
F O.S. No.90 of 2007 pending before District Munsifs Court,
Kangeyam, the suit is ready ripe for trial and the
respondents are diligently defending the same. Having
initiated proceedings before various forums, cannot now
seek to invoke arbitration as an additional remedy.
G )()()( xxx xxx
120. Company Appeal Nos. 21,25 to 27 and 29 of 2009:-
The gist of order in C.P. Nos.65 and 76 of 2005 dated
13.8.2008 is that:-
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 865
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
CEPL, KCP and C.G.Holdings were io return Rs. 75 A
Crores to ORE and Rs. 4 Crores to Athappan. The money
was to be paid within a period of one year starting
1.11 ..2008 with 25 percent of the same, being paid every
year.
B
CEPL; KCP and C.G.Holdings were to utilize Rs. 20
Crores maintained in the fixed deposit at State Bank of
India, Erode to pay ORE and Athappan. In the event of
failure to pay the money the property of VMC situated in
Coimbatore is to be transferred to ORE and Athappan in
the proportion of 17.15 acres and 7.80 acres respectively. C
Until.then VML was refrained from dealing with the property.
On ·receipt of money, ORE and Athappan were to
surrender their shares in CEPL and CEPL shall
accordingly be permitted to reduce its share capital. D
The parties were given liberty to approach Company Law
Board for limited purpose of overcoming difficulties in
implementation of the said order.
xxx xxx xxx E
145. As per Order of Company Law Board amount
invested by ORE has to be refunded which of course, must
be in accordance with applicable laws: be it compliance
with FEMA or other Regulations, ORE, being a foreign F
investor- an entity of.foreign origin , as per FEMA, cannot
own immovable property in India. Compliance of FEMA or
other applicable regulations cannot be bypassed. By the
order' dated 3.8.2009, Company Law Board modified its
earlier order directing VML to execute the sale deed G
conveying Immovable properties of 17.15 acres to the
nominee of ORE and thereby modified its earlier order.
The Order of the 'company Law Board modifying its earlier
order directing VML to convey the properties to 'norriinee
of ORE' is to be modified to the effect that any .such H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R.
A conveyance should be subject to applicable laws and
regulations and with required approval/permission to be
obtained by ORE from the competent authorities. The
Order of the Company Law Board in C.A. No.155 of 2008
is to be modified to that extent.
B
146 ..... Company A"ppeal Nos. 21 and 29 of 2009
preferred by ORE and Company Appeals Nos. 25 and 26
of 2009 preferred by N. Athappan and R. Athappan are
allowed. Company appeal No.27 of 2009 is disposed of
modifying the order of Company Law Board dated
c 3.8.2009 in C.A. No.155 of 2008 to the effect that the
conveyance of immovable properties to nominee of ORE
is subject to all applicable laws and regulations and if need
be, with necessary approval/permission to be obtained by
ORE from the competent authorities."
D
5. ORE and N. Athappan filed execution petitions before
the CLB in December 2011 and the same are stated to be
pending as on date.
E 6. While the proceedings before the CLB were pending,
respondent No. 1 started filing multiple criminal complaints. On ·
27th February, 2006, respondent No. ·1 filed a complaint before
the Economic Offences Wing, Chennai (EOW) against ORE,
Fairfax, Prem Watsa, Ramaswamy Athappan, Chandran
Ratnaswami (appellant herein), Paul Rivett, M/s. Odyssey
F America Reinsurance Corporation and N. Athappan making
them accused Nos. 1 to 8 inter alia on the following allegations:
"Through this strategic acquisition accused No. 1, through
Accused No. 7 and Accused No. 4 through Accused No.
G 8 acquired substantial ownership and management rights
in VML and CPL also. The complainant states that the sole
objective of the sacrifice made by the complainant of his
highly valuable prime immovable propertfes is the
assurance of the Accused No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 that about Rs.
H 375 crores would be brought into the JV Company as
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 867
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
investment and loans and projects worth thousands of A
crores would be commenced.
The complainant states that, as per the joint venture
agreement dated 30.1.2004, Mis. Odyssey America
Reinsurance Corporation, the 7th accused herein which is B
a subsidiary company of the Fair Fax Group and the
Accused No. 2 had agreed to extend a Corporate
Guarantee in favour of the lender for arranging· the
syndicated credit facility of US$ 65 Million (approximately
Rs. 300 crores) to the JV company. In confirmatio~ ofthe c
said fact the Accused No. 2, 3 c;ind 4 and 8 while signing
the JV agreement, cleverly included in-the same, a model
draft of the Irrevocable Corporate Guarantee Agreement
to be furnished by the 7th accused in favour of the lender
and even signed the said draft so as to make believe the
0
complainant in no uncertain terms about their intention to
honouf"their commitments. Thus, the joint venture business
could commence only upon the 1st accused arranging for
the syndicated credit facility of US$ 65 million, on the
strength of the Corporate Guarantee to be given by the 7th
accused. E
xxx xxx xxx
..... On the one hand the accused had miserably failed to
organize the funds even after the complainant had parted
F
with the ownership rights over valuable properties held by
him through VML and CPL and on the other hand they
defrauded ·and cheated the complainant by not organizing
the promised funds, upon the receipt of which alone, the
complainant woul.d be able to commence the projects G
worth thousand of crores .
... , From the above, it is therefore evident that the
consideration of entering into the JV agreement was the
promise and assurance that the accused 2 to 6 shall also
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A arrange for a loan of Rs. 300 crores in addition to the share
investment of Rs. 75 crores as stipulated under the JV.
agreement.
)()()( xxx xxx
Thus the accused have induced the comp1ainant to
enter into an agreement under the guise of a joint venture
agreement which was conceived in pursuance of a
criminal conspiracy with an intention of cheating. In addition
to the above, the accused 4 and 8 have also obtained a
c gratification, amounting to approximately Rs. 37.40 er.
from the complainant, by getting the shares of the
conipanie!! allotted to them to a discounted rate, as
consideration for facilitating the joint venture and for
arranging the term loan thereby making wrongful gains to
D themselves while causing wrongful loss to the complainant.
Moreover after receiving the said consideration in the form
of shares at a discounted value, the accused 4 and 8 have
now joined hands with M/s ORE Holdings Ltd. for gaining
an illegal majority in the JV company and have thus
E defrauded the complainant of several crorf?S of rupees.
Therefore, the accused Nos. 1 to 7 have committed
various offences under section 120-B, read with sections
· 409, 420, 405, 471 and 389. among other provisions of
the Indian Penal Code, which amount to the offences of
F
. Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust,
making False Representation and Promises and Extortion
by putting the fear of accusation of offences against the
complainant among others, and have induced the
complainant to part with the shares of his company and
G. the control over the valuable immovable properties owned
by him through VML and CPL on the strength of the false
promises ani;:l assurances made by the accused."
7. Since the Economic Offences Wing refused to take any
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 869
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
action, the Respondent No.1 filed Criminal O.P. No. 9791 of A
2006 before the High Court seeking direction to EOW to take
action, which petition was later withdrawn. Thereafter, he filed
a similar private complaint (Criminal M.P. No. 6096 of 2006)
for offences under Sections 406, 406 r/w 109, 420, 467 r/w 420
IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai which was B
dismissed on 13th March, 2007 holding the same to wreak
vengeance and observing as under:
"7. On a careful consideration of the aforesaid complaint,
depositions, and Exhibits it is unbelievable to state that the C
respondents have cheated and committed breach of trust,
the complainant who is a former member of the Legislative
assembly, a former member of the parliament and running
business houses which have properties worth of the more
than 100 crores of Rupees. Because, no documents were
filed to show that the shares of Rs. 10/- face value of the D
Cheran Properties were sold in the market for Rs.60/- and
the shares of Rs.10/- face value of the Vasanthi Mills were
sold at Rs.105/-. It is not believable that the shares of Rs.
10/- face value was transferred to the same value of.
Nandakumar and paid about Rs. 22 crores as E
commission, as the complainant himself has admitted in
the complaint that some of the respondents and ihe
complainant have started a Joint Venture Company. The
memorandum of understanding/Joint venture agreement is
not submitted for the perusal of the court. In the f
memorandum of understanding the details to the
investment of each of the parties, the shares allotted to
each of lhem, the relief to the parties when the conditions
are violated, and the court which has jurisdiction to
entertain such matter. The failure to file the memorandum G
of understanding in the court, and tlie failure to give the
reaspns for not filing the same is not acceptable.
8. It is clearly seen from the deposition of the petitioner
and the complaint that the respondents have arranged for ab·out
H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2013) 17 S.C.R
A 17 million American Dollars through a firm Odyssey. It is also
seen that the said sum is with the Cheran Holdings Private
Limited and the affidavit filed in the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi
confirms the same, while examining details, it is seen that a
sum of 17 million American Dollars have come to Cheran
B Holdings Limited in which the complainant is a share holder.
Hence the petitioner complainant might not have sustained any
loss. There is no explanation in the complaint as to whether
after the receipt of 17 million American Dollars, it was invested
in the business. In the first meeting of the petitioner with the
c respondents, it was agreed that foreign investments are to be
made accordingly the same has been done. It is seen from the
deposition of the petitioner that 17 million American Dollars, it
is not believable that the respondents have cheated the
petitioner/complainant.
D 9. It is seen that on orders of Hon'ble High Court, Delhi in
C.P. No.292/2004, a sum of Rs. 78 crores has to be dep~ited
and Cheran Enterprises and Cheran Holdings Limited have' not
deposited in the Bank Accounts. The reasons adduced by the
. complainant was hold an important post in the Cheran Group
E of Comp!Jnies for not depositing the sum into the Bank, do not
seem to be accepted. Moreover, Chandran Ratnaswami has
obtained powers from the petitioner for the conduct of the case
and as such, he has to face the consequences of the orders
of the court. On that aspect also, the petition would sustain.
F
xxx xxx xxx
12. The petitioner on 23.9.2005 sent an e-mail to the State
Bank of India to give Bank guarantee to BSNL, that when he
approached the Bank, he came to know that Chandra•
G Ratnaswami and Athappan Ramaswamy have sent
independent letters to the Bank requiring that the request of the
petitioner should not be accepted. It cannot be considered by
the Court as a criminal act. It can be considered as an act of
safe guard in the trade. The proceedings between the petitioner ,
H and respondents are of civil nature relating to contract Act and
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 871
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
Company Law. If the conditions therefore are violated, the A
petitioner has to seek remedy under Contract Act or Company
Law. Instead the filing of this case terming the respondents as
accused the court considers that it cannot be accepted .
.13. On world level, the foreign investments made! in each B
country enhance the economy and it is a day to day commercial
activities. The petitioner and the respondents and some others,
with an intention to establish a joint venture company having
done so, have to take steps for the developmental activities,
and one party should not, with intention to wreak vengeance C
against the other should not, term them as accused and
approach the court, and this court cannot accept it. Because,
the petitioner has not handed over any property to the
respondents under section 406 IPC. Hence there is no
ingredient for breach of trust. In the circumstances that the
respondents have arranged for 17 million American Dollars, that D
·-Chandran Ratnaswamy himself has agreed to the Rs.78 crores
case in the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi that the petitioner has not
mentioned in the complaint that date, time and place where he
was cheated, that like wise, the Respondent cheated the·
petitioner and thereby he sustained loss, and that there are no E
ingredients for sections 420, 467 read with 420 are found in
the complaint or depositions. Therefore. no prima facie case
to show that the respondents with criminal intention indulged
in criminal activities is found in the complaint. or depositions
or documents. F
14. Hence, for the reasons as aforesaid, this petition is
dismissed under Section 203 of Cr. P.C."
8. Respondent No. 1 then filed another similar complaint
before Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam suppressing the G
fact of filing earlier complaints and the order dated 13th
March, 2007 passed by the Magistrate Penmdurai,
whereupon the Crime Branch, Erode was directed to
register an FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. 7 of 2007 was
registered by Police Station DCB, Erode under Sections H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R.
A 120-B, 420, 169, 408, 409 IPC, but the case was said to
have been closed on 20th May, 2009 and the police filed
the Closure Report. Meanwhile, Criminal O.P. Nos. 12695
and 19384 of 2007 had been filed for quashing the FIR
by the persons shown as accused in the said FIR, in which
B the High Court vide order dated 8th February, 2010
frowned upon the conduct of respondent No. 1 in the
following terms:
"3. It is brought to the notice of this court by the learned
Senior Counsel Mr. Habibullah Basha, appearing for the
c accused/petitioners 1 to 3 in Crl.O.P. No.12695 that the
"P facto complainant, on the very same allegations
preferred a complaint in C.C. No.1096 of 2006 on the file
of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate
Court at Perundurai and the said court was pleasQ~ to
D pass an order of dismissal under Section 203 Cr.P.C. It
is impressed upon this court that such dismissal came
about after consideration of the complaint and the
statement of the witnesses and on finding no ground to
proceed thereon.
~ ,-:,ough in view of the submission made by the learned
Governmeilt lldvocate (Crl.side) nothing survives for
consideration in the matter, this Court would frown upon
the conduct of the defacto complainant in indulging in
F repeated harassment of the petitioners. The criminal
original petitions shall stand closed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."
9. The respondent then preferred Special Leave Petition
•n the Supreme Court being SLP (Crl.) No. 9853 of 2010
G against the order dated 8th February, 2010, which was
ois.,·•~sed by this Court on 22nd November, 2010 with
liberty to pursue protest petition, if any, said to be pending
on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayem. It is
alleged that no protest petition was pending on that day.
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 873
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
1O. Though in different context, respondent No.1, K.C. A
Palanisamy, filed three writ petitions against the State of
Tdmil Nadu, Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences
Wing, Chennai, Director General of Police, State of Tamil
Nadu, Union of India, Central Bureau of Investigation and
Reserve Bank of India, in which respondent No.1 prayed B
for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the
respondents in writ petitions for investigation as also for
transfer of investigation and FIR making allegations against
another Company, DAIL. In the said writ petitions, the
contention of the writ petitioner was that he was the c
resident of Coimbatore and former Member of Legislative
Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu and Managing
Director of the Company viz. CEPL. The said Company
was formed for the purpose of sharing a Joint Venture
between the CG Holdings Private Limited, ORE Holdings
D
Limited, Mauritius and one N. Athappan. As part of the
Joint Venture business CEPL looked for acquiring a
Telecom Company called DAIL which was a Delhi based
Company involved in the business of International Long
Distance Telephony Services and Internet Services. In
those writ petitions, a common counter affidavit was filed E
by the respondents refuting all the averments made in the
three writ petitions and stated that more than nine cases
were pending against the respondent No.1, writ petitioner.
In the order dated 19th October, 2011 passed by the
Madras High Court in those three writ petitions, the F
numbers of cases pending against the writ petitioner were
mentioned in para 19 of the order, extracted hereunder:
"19. The cases pending against the petitioner in various
provisions of IPC including Section 420 IPC, there were G
as many as 9 cases in Coimbatore alone. They are as
follows:-
"a) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
Cr. No.37/99 u/s. 420 IPC.
H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013) 17 S.C.R.
A b) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
Cr. No.17/2000 u/s. 420 IPC.
c) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
Cr. No.62/2000 u/s. 420 IPC.
B
d) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
Cr. No.18/2001 Li/s. 420 IPC.
e) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
c Cr. No.25/2001 u/s. 420 IPC.
f) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
Cr. No.29/2001 u/s. 384 IPC.
g) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
D Cr. No.20/2002 u/s. 467, 468,471
472 and 477(A), IPC.
fl) Coimbatore Economic Offences Wing
Cr. No.03/2001 u/s. 408 IPC.
E
i) Coimbatore City Crime Branch
Cr. No.26/2003 u/s.406 IPC."
11. In para 20 of the order dated 19th October, 2011, the
F Court observed that the modus operandi of the writ petitioner
was to defraud a person or entity and thereafter approach the
Courts with multiple petitions in order to distract attention from
his own misdeeds.
12. The High Court dismissing all the afore-mentioned
G three writ petitions observed as under:-
"28. However, this Court is not inclined to accept the
request made by the petitioner. The petitioner is not an
innocent party in filing such complaints and he himself has
H not ·obeyed the orde.r passed by the Delhi High Court in.·
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 875
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
the application for winding up and asking him to refund the A
amount siphoned off by him which was obtained as a loan
by DA1L. Parties who come to court m_ust come with clean
hands. Not only the petitioner has come to this Court with
unclean hands, but he himself being an accused in several
cases had also suppressed the entire proceedings of the B
Delhi High Court including the order directing the company
to retransfer the money siphoned off from DAIL.
)()()( . xxx xxx
31. In the present case, the petitioner has filed series of C
Crl.Ops including the prayer which has been made in the
writ petitions and they were negatived by this Court more
than once. All that this Court held was that investigation
should be conducted by the State Police and a report
should be filed expeditiously and that has been done in this D
case as noted in the counter affidavit filed by the second
respondent.
)()()( xxx xxx
34. Therefore, in the light of the above, there is no case E
made out to grant any direction sought for by the petitioner
either in the first writ petition or to call for a report from RBI
as demanded in the second writ petition or for any
direction to the Central Government to take steps to
retransfer the funds siphoned off from this country. The F
petitioner has not made out any prima facie case for grant
of any such direction and he has suppressed the
information relating to winding up proceedings before the
Delhi High Court. The petitioner himself is not a person
above board and faced with several criminal cases under G
Section 420 IPC not only as revealed in the affidavit filed
in support of the petition for impleadment but also as noted
by this Court in the decision cited in Ramaswamy
Athappan's case (cited supra). The petitioner himself is
guilty of several commissions and omissions and at his H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R_. •
A instance no direction can be granted by this Court.
35. In view of the above, all the three writ petitions will stand
dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed."
B
13. Curiously enough, on 2nd January, 2012, respondent
No. 6 - Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur allegedly in collusion
with respondent No. 1 and relying upon the order dated 22nd
November, 2010 reopened FIR No. 7 of 2007 and ordered re-
c investigation. Charge-sheet being CC 162 of 2012 ultimately
came to be filed by respondent No. 5 - Dy. Superintendent of
Police, District Crime Records Bureau, Erode before the
Judicial Magistrate, Erode-Ill on 11th September, 2012 inter alia
against Paul Rivett, Chandran Rathnaswami, Ramasamy
D Athappan, Nandakumar Athappan, M/s. Fairfax Financial
Holdings Limited, Mis. Harnin Watsa Investment Council,
Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation and ORE Holdings
Limited showing them respectively as accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6,
8, 9, 11 and 12 for committing offences under Sections 120-
E B, 420, 409 read with 109 IPC.
14. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, the Judicial
Magistrate on 12th September, 2012 issued summons
returnable on 12th October, 2012. On 26th September, 2012,
the Dy. Superintendent of Po!!cs f.:zd a ;-.::µuri stating that he
F searched for the accused in Chennai and Mumbai bui could
not ascertain their whereabouts and accordingly 'prayed for
issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) which were issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, Erode on 27th September, 2012.
Based upon the NBWs, the Superintendent cif Police issued a
G Look-Out Circular on 9th January, 2013 against the appellant.
Unaware of all this, the appellant landed in India and was
detained by the immigration authorities. He filed a writ p~tition
being W.P. No. 1764 of 2013 and on 22nd January, 2013 the
High Court passed an interim order restraining appellant's
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 877
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
detention and directed to post the writ petition on 29th January, A
I 2013. SLP filed against this order was disposed of on 24th
January, 2013 observing that the High Court had itself posted
the matter on 29th January, 2013. On 29th January, 2013, the
High Court directed the appellant to surrender before the trial
court and pray for recall of NBWs vide order passed in Criminal.· B
O.P. No. 2283 of 2013 filed by him for quashing the
chargesheet i.e. CC 162 of 2012. Crl.M.P. No. 3 of 2013 was
also filed in Criminal O.P. No. 2283 of 2013 alleging fraud
commi~ted by the opposite party. On the same day, Crl.M.Ps.
N.o. 3 in Criminal O.P. No, 2166 of 2013 filed by Ramasamy c
Athappan & N. Athappan and Criminal O.P. No.2282 of 2013
filed by Paul Rivett also came up before the High Court and
they were also directed to. surrender before the Judicial
Magistrate No. Ill, Erode. Finally on 1st February, 2013 the High
Court directed in respect of the appellant (petitioner in Criminal 0
O.P. No. 2283 of 2013), Ramasamy Athappan & N. Athappan
(petitioners in Criminal O.P. No. 2166 of 2013) and Paul Rivett
(petitioner in Criminal O.P. No. 2282 of 2013) as under:
"5. Considering the submissions made by all the parties
and also considering the facts and circumstances of the E
case, the order dated 29.01.2013 is modified as follows:
"The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial
Court on or before 08.03.2013 and on such appearance,
the warrant, if any, shall be recalled. If the offences are non- F
bailable in nature, the petitioners are directed to file bail
application before the trial Court along With a bond for a
sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten Thousand) with two
sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the trial
court and on such sureties, the·trial court shall dispose the G
bail applications on the same day. The petitioners are at
liberty to file to withdraw the lookout application before this
Court, if they are advised to do so.
With the above directions, these petitions are disposed
ci" H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A 15. The appellant surrendered on 4th February, 2013 and
NBWs were recalled by the Judicial Magistrate Ill, Erode.
However, the immigration authorities did not allow the appellant
to leave India on 5th February, 2013 stating that the court
proceedings were pending. In the meanwhile, writ petition being
B W.P. No. 2739 of 2013 was filed bY Ramaswamy Athappan
praying to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus forebearing the
Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur (Tamilnadu) and Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi including its constituent officers at all
c airports from acting upon the non-bailable arrest warrant dated
27th September, 2012 issued against the petitioner
(Ramaswamy Athappan) in respect of chargesheet CC No. 162
of 2012 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate-Ill, Erode and
'.the alleged Look Out Notice dated 9th January, 2013 issued
0 by the Superintendent of Police and consequently from in any
manner restraining/restricting the petitioner's entry into or exit
out_of India. Similar writ petition being W.P No. 2740 of 2013
was also filed by the appellant - Chandran Ratnaswami who
additionally prayed for directions to DSP, SP, MHA and
E respondent No. 1 herein K.C. Palanisamy to jointly and severally
pay compensation of Rs. 1O crores to him for his illegal
detention on 22nd January, 2013.
'·
16. On 26th February, 2013, the High Court again directed
the appellant to appear before the trial court by passing the
F following order in W.P. Nos. 2739 & 2740 of 2013 and Criminal
O.P. Nos. 2166, 2282 and 2283 of 2013:
"10. Accordingly, Mr. Chandran Ratnaswami the accused
should appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, ·
where CC No. 162/2012 is pending, within a period of two
G
weeks from today to comply with t~e following:
(i) he must file an affidavit of undertaking before the court
that he would not evade the due process of law and ensure
his appearance as and when required;
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 879
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
(ii) he should execute his own bond for a sum of A
Rs:5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) and two cash
sureties of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) each
to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate-Ill,
Erode on the same day.
B
xxx xxx xxx
13. In this case, non-bailable warrant has been recalled on
04.0;2.2013 on the accused surrendering before the
learned Magistrate. For non-compliance of the orders
passed by this Court, I am inclined to pass the above order C
directing them to appear before the Court for the purpose
of filing an affidavit and furnishing surety."
17. On 11th March, 2013, this Court granted stay of
· chargesheet i.e. CC 162 of 2012 by an order passed in D
SLP(Crl.) Nos. 1947-1948 of 2013 which have been filed by
'
Paul Rivett, an other accused in the chargesheet CC 162 of
2012, challenging the orders dated 29th January and 1st
February, 2013 respectively in Criminal O.P. No. 2282 of 2013
and Crl.M.P. No.3 ·of 2013 in Criminal O.P. No. 2282 of 2013 .. E
Paul Rivett is Law Officer in the Fairfax Group and is a
Canadian citizen and he has also been made an accused in
the chargesheet CC 162 of 2012. NBWs as well as the Look
Out Notice were issued against Paul Rivett also.
18. On 12th March, 2013, th.e appellant prayed before the F
Single Judge of High Court that he may be permitted to file
affidavit of undertaking there as proceedings in the trial court
were stayed by this Court which prayer was opposed by
respondent No. 1 on 13th March, 2013 urging that this Court
was seized of the matter and the Single Judge could not pass G
any o"rder. However, the Single Judge passed an order dated
14th March, 2013 in M:P. No. 2 of 2013 in W.P. No. 2740 of.
2013 filed by the appellant seeking recall of the Look Out Notice
and directed the appellant to file the affidavit of undertaking
betore the High Court and to furnish security deposit of Rs. 25 H
880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A lakhs and permitted him to travel.
19. Challenging the above order of the Single Judge,
respondent No. 1 filed a writ appeal being W.A. No. 517 of
2013 which was allowed by a Division Bench of the High ColJrt
8 vide order dated 22nd March, 2013 setting aside the order
dated 14th March, 2013 passed by.the Single Judge and
observing:
"12. From the above narrated facts it is evident that the
first respondent has not filed bail application while
c surrendering himself before the Judicial Magistrate No.Ill,
Erode, for recalling the Non-bailable Warrant and the fact
remains, till date he has not obtained any order of
anticipatory bail/bail.
o 13. The appellant challenged the interim order dated
26.2.2013 passed in Crl. O.P. No.2166, 2282 and 2283 of
2013 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C ) Nos.
1924-1926 of 2013. Accused No.2 in the said C.C. No.162 of
2012 viz. Paul Rivert filed SLP (Crl) No.1947-1948 of 2013 and
.E' prayed to quash the proceedings pending before the Judicial
Magistrate Court No.Ill, Erode and also prayed for an interim
order to dispense with hi9s personal appearance before the
Judicial Magistrate Court No.Ill, Erode in connection with C.C.
No.162 of 2012. The Hon~ble Supreme Court refused to pass
F any interim order in the ·applications filed by the appellant
herein.
14. Insofar as the applications filed by Paul Rivert (A-2),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to stay the order passed
by this Court dated 29.01.2013 and 01.02.2013 in Crl. O.P.
G. 2282 of 2013 and granted stay of the proceedings in CC 162
of 2013 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court NoJll,
Erode, pending further orders. The prayer for dispensing with
his appearance was not granted. The app~llant thereafter filed
Crl. M.P. Nos.5810 to 5812 of 2013 in SLP (Crl.) No.1924-
H
. CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 881
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
1926 of 2013 and prayed for restraining the first respondent A
from leaving India, pending SLP direct the first respondent to
surrender his passport before the Judicial Magistrate Court
No.Ill, Erode No order was passed in the said petition and the
matter is adjourned to 3.4.2013 before !he Supreme Court for
further hearing. B
15. The first respondent thereafter moved this High Court
to pass orders in M.P. No.2 of 2013 which was allowed by the
leaned single Judge holding that since CC No.162 of 2012 is
stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the NBW having
been recalled, the basis of the Lookout Notice has gone."· C
)()()( xxx xxx
18. On a perusal of the prayer made in the writ petition, it
i!t evident that the first respondent has chaUenged the D
Look-out Notice issued on 9.1.2013 and consequently
prayed for payment of compensation. The learned S!ngle
Judge in the above miscellaneous petition has held that
the Loo-out Notice dated 9.1.2013 is cancelled and
allowed the first respondent to leave India after filing E
undertaking affidavit and deposit a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs.
19. It is not in dispute that the very same issues regarding
the Look out Notice and the prayer to quash CC No.162
of 2012 pending on the file of JM Ill Court; Erode, which
was filed at the instance of another accused (A-2 Paul F
River!) are posted for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court on 3.4.2013. Admittedly the matter is seized of by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and only on interim stay of the
proceedings in CC No.162 of 2012 was ordered by the
Apex Court, that too at the instance of A-2 in the above G
C.C. No. 162 of 2013, and the prf!yer to dispense with the
appearance of A-2 was not granted. If the order of the
learned· '·single Judge dated 14.3.2013 is to be
implemented immediately, it may be difficult to securelhe
· presence of the first respondent in the criminal case. H
882 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A )()()( xxx xxx
22. On the above said background and in the light of the
decision cited supra, we are of the considered view that
the order passed by the learned single Judge in M.P. No.2
B of 2013 in W.P. No.2740 of 2013 dated 14.3.2013 is
liable to be set aside, and accordingly set aside. The writ
appeal is allowed. Consequently, the first respondent is
entitled to get refund of the amount deposited by him on
15.3.2013 pursuant. to the interim order of the-4earned
single Judge No costs. Connect M.P. No.1 of 2013 is
c closed."
20. Hence, this appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 13120
of 2013 by the appellant- Chandran Ratnaswami. S.L.P.(Crl.)
Nos. 3273-3274 of 2013 have also been filed by the same
D appellant (an accused in Chargesheet CC 162 of 2013) against
orders dated 29th January, 2013 and 1st February, 2013
respectively in Criminal O.P. No. 2283 of 2013 and Crl.M.P.
No.3 of 2013 in Criminal O.P. No. 2283 of 2013. In these SLPs,
notice has not been issued and they are fresh ones.
E
21. Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 1924-
1927 of 2013 have been filed by K.C. Palanisamy [respondent
No. 1 in civil appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 13120 of 2013]
challenging the order dated 26th February, 2013 in Criminal
F O.P. Nos. 2283, 2282 and 2166 of 2013 and Civil Appeals
arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 11342-11343 of 2013
(D.No.7366/2013) have been filed challenging the order dated
26th February, 2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 2739 and 2740 of
2013. In these matters, the appellant - K.C. Palanisamy has
challenged the said High Court's order by which the accused
G have been exempted from filing proper bail application under
the Criminal Procedure Code.
22. Contempt Petition (C) No. 166 of 2013 in S.L.P.(Crl.)
No. 9853 of 201 O has been filed by the applicant - Chand ran
H Ratnaswami for wilful and deliberate violation and
•
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 883
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
, disobedience of order da)ed 22nd November, 2010 by re- A
opening the closed FIR No. 7 of 2007. In this contempt petition,
notice has not been issued and it is a fresh one.
23. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing
in SLP(C) No.13120 of 2013 assailed the impugned order
B
passed by the Division Bench and also the orders passed in
criminal proceedings as being illegal and wholly without
jurisdiction. Learned counsel drew our attention to the entire
facts of the case discussed hereinabove and submitted that
respondent No.1 filed a series of complaints which have either
been dismissed or quashed or stayed by the High Court or this
c
Court. Learned counsel submitted that the criminal courts
including the High Court have completely failed and erred in not
condemning respondent No.1 for approaching the courts to
obstruct the proceedings before the learned Single Judge of
the Madras High Court. Learned coun~el submitted that the D
disputes arose with regard to the Joint Venture Agreement
between the parties have been finally adjudicated by the
Company Law Board and the High Court, but respondent No.1
instead of complying with the directions of the Company Law
Board and High Court started filing frivolous criminal cases E
'against the appellant, which were either quashed or stayed by
· the High Court. Learned counsel seriously assailed the conduct
of the Superintendent of Police, who directed reinvestigation
in a matter which was finally closed. Learned counsel submitted
that the Division Bench failed to note that the entire efforts of F
the respondent in PfOSecuting the appellant are serious abuse
of the process of the Court. Learned counsel referred the
allegations made in the complaint petition and submitted that
the whole object of filing those complaints are nothing but to
pressurize the appellant and to harass him. Learned counsel G
then submitted that the whole procedure in the proceedings
initiated against the appellant is violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It was contended that the conduct of
respondent No.1 is deplorable and the same is contemptuous
amounting to deliberate obstruction of the judicial proceedings H
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A and an abuse of the process of the Court. Learned counsel
lastly contended that the Division Bench has erroneously set
aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that
the issue was pending in this Court.
B 24. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing
in SLP(Crl.) Nos.1947-48 of 2013 after narrating the entire
· facts in the case and the sequence of events submitted that the
continuation of criminal proceedings and the submission of the
charge-sheet is the result of the wrong understanding of the
order by Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur, who directed
C reinvestigation in a matter which was closed. Learned counsel,
therefore, submitted that the order for reinvestigation passed
by the Superintendent of Police is totally illegal, void and
contemptuous. It was contended that series of complaints filed
by respondent No.1 has either been dismissec:J.,pr quashed or
D stayed by the High Court and that respondent 'No.1 has the
propensity to abuse the legal process and utilize it as a tool to
wreak vengeaQce against others involved with the CEPL so that
the appellants' Company does not pursue the Company Law
Board proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that it has been
E the modus operandi of respondent No.1 to file false and bogus
complaints and utilize the same to harass and coerce the
. appellant. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the dispute
raised by the respondent is purely a civil dispute but it has been
. given the colour of criminal act with the sole objective to
F implicate and detain these two appellants, who are foreigners,
in criminal cases and not to allow them to travel outside India.
25. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing
for one of the appellants contended that it is a matter of record
G that every single complaint filed by respondent No. 1 has been
either dismissed or quashed or stayed by the High Court or this
Court and respondent No. 1 has the propensity to abuse the
legal process and utilize it as a tool to wreak vengeance against
others involved with CEPL so that the appellant's company
does not pursue the Company Law Board proceedings.
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 885
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
Learned counsel contended that it has been the modus A
operandi of respondent No. 1 to file false and bogus criminal
complaints and to utilize the same to harass and coerce the
appellant. Respondent No. 1 had malafidely filed a complaint
CC 157/07 before the Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. This was
an ingenious case where respondent No. 1 deliberately and B
fraudulently signed and issued a cheque from the CEPL
account to his own company, namely, Cherraan Constructions
Limited (CCL) for Rs. 5 crore (when there was no transaction,
liability to the payee or authority to issue the cheque) and then
caused the cheque to be dishor.oured. Promptly·, CCL filed a c
Section 138 NI Act complaint against the appellant and the other
Director of CEPL etc. but did not make respondent No. 1 an
accused. The Madras High Court quashed this complaint in
Criminal O.P. No. 29737 of 2007. · ·
26. Mr. Karthik Sheshadri, learned counsel appearing for D
the respondent,.on the other hand in support of continuance of
criminal proceedings, submitted that the respondent -
complainant made out a case in the complaint for prosecuting
the· appellant for cheating and misappropriation of money. With
regard to the filing of FIR being No.7 of 2007, learned counsel E
submitted that immediately after the FIR was lodged, the
appellants approached the High Court of Madras and got an
order of stay for further investigation in Criminal O.P. NO.
12695/2007 and Criminal O.P. No.19384 of 2007 and
consequently all further investigation of the crime atteged \.:ame F
to be stayed. Appellants also filed a case for quashing of the
FIR before the Madras High Court. Learned counsel vehemently
argued that FIR No.7/2007 was never closed at any point of
time and, therefore, the direction for the reinvestigation was
perfectly justified. Based on the investigation, charge-sheet was G
filed. According to the learned counsel, the Superintendent of
Police passed order for the reinvestigation only because no
investigation was ever conducted because of the stay granted
by the High Court. While justifying the legality and validity of
H
886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R.
A reinvestigation, learned counsel submitted that even without
permission of the Magistrate, Police Officer can direct further
investigation. In support of that, learned counsel relied upon the
decision of this Court in State of Bihar & Another vs. J.A.C.
Saldanna and Others, AIR 1980 SC 326. Lastly, learned
B counsel submitted that when the charge-sheet makes out a
case then civil liberty is not the appropriate remedy for the
aggrieved person.
27. In the light of factual situation and having gone through
C the entire facts and the sequence of events in the criminal
proceedings before the criminal courts and the orders passed
time to time by such courts, the question that falls for
consideration is as to whether continuance of such criminal
proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court.
D 28. Before we embark upon dealing with the issue posed
before us, we would like to discuss the principles laid down by
various courts as to when continuance of criminal proceeding
will amount to abuse of process of the Court.
E 29. The doctrine of abuse of process of court and the
remedy of refusal to allow the trial to proceed is well-
established and recognized doctrine both by the English courts
and courts in4 India. There are some established principles of
law which bar the trial when there appears to be abuse of
process of court. Lord Morris in the case of Connelly vs.
F Director of Public Prosecutions, (1964) 2 All ER 401 (HL)
observed: "There can be no doubt that a court which is
endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are
necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction.
A court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rule of
G practice and to suppress any abuse of its process and to defeat
any attempted thwarting of its process". "The power (which is
inherent in a court's jurisdiction) to prevent abuse of its process
and to control its own procedure must in a criminal court include
a power to safeguard an accused person from oppression or
H prejudice." In his separate pronouncement, Lord Delvin in the
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 887
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
same case observed that where particular criminal proceedings A
constitute an abuse of process, the court is empowered to
refuse to allow the indictment to proceed to trial.
30. In Hui Chi-Ming vs. The Queen [(1992) 1 AC 34
(PC)], the Privy Council defined the word "abuse of process"
8
as something so unfair and wrong with the prosecution that the
court should not allow a prosecutor to proceed with what is, in
all other respects, a perfectly supportable case.
31. In the leading case of Bennett vs. Horseferry Road
Magistrates' Court, (1993) 3 All ER 138, on the application of C
abuse of process, the court confirms that an abuse of process
justifying the stay of prosecution could arise in the following
circumstances: ..
·•
(i) where it would be impossible to give the accused a fair 0
trial; or
(ii) where it would amount to misuse/manipulation of
process because it offends the court's sense of justice and
propriety to be asked to try the accused in the
circumstances of the particular case. E
32. In R. vs. Derby Crown Court exp Brooks, (1985) 80
Cr.App.R. 164, Lord Chief Justice Ormrod stated: "It may be
an abuse of process if either (a) the prosecution pas
manipulated or misused the process of the court so as to F
deprive the defendant of a protection provided by law or to take
unfair advantage of a technicality, or (b) on the balance of
probability the defendant has been, or will be, prejudiced in the
preparation of conduct of his defence by delay on the part of
the prosecution which is unjustifiable." G
33. Lord Justice Neill in R. vs. Beckford, [1996] 1
Cr.App.R. 94: [1995] R.T.R. 251 observed that: "The jurisdiction
to stay can be exercised in many different circumstances.
Nevertheless two main strands can be detected in the
H
888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A authorities: (a) cases where the court concludes that the
defendant cannot receive a fair trial; (b) cases where the court
concludes that it would be unfair for the defendant to be tried."
What is unfair and wrong will be for the court to determine on
the individual facts of each case.
B
34. This C{)urt in State of Kamataka vs. L. Muniswamy and
Others, (1977) 2 SCC 699 observed that the wholesome power
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a
proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
C proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of
the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding
ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve
a salutary public purpose. A court proceeding ought not to be
permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
D persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice
are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be
administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was
held in this case (at p.703 of SCC):
E "7.
In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court
is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends
F
of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in
civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary
public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not
to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
G harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled
object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and
the like would justify the High Court in quashing the
proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice
H are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 889
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
got to be administered according to laws made by the A
legislature. The compelling necessity for making these
observations is that without a proper realisation of the
object and purpose of the provision which seeks to save
the inherent powers of the High Court to do justice,
between the State and its subjects, it would be impossible B
to appreciate the width and contours of that salient
jurisdiction."
This case has been followed in a large number of
subsequent cases of this Court and other courts.
c
35. In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and
Others, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, this Court in the backdrop
of interpretation of various relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this
.Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the D
extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. gave
the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. E
Thus, this Court made it clear that it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list to myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) F
"102. (1) ........ .
(2) .... .
(3) ..... .
G
(4) ·····
(5) .....
(6) .....
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended H
890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge."
36. This Court in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and
8
Others vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque and Another, (2005) 1 SCC
122 observed thus: (SCC p. 128, para 8)
"8 . ... It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow
any action which would result in injustice and prevent
C promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers, court would
be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation/
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court
or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve
the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
D complaint, the court may examine the question of fact.
When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to assess what the
· complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made
out.even if the allegations are accepted in toto."
E
37. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others,
(2006) 6 8CC 736 this Court again cautioned about a growing
tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into
criminal cases. The Court noticed the prevalent impression that
civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately
F protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further
observed that: (SCC p. 749, para 13)
"13 . ... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which
do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure
G through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and
discouraged."
38. Jn the case of lnder Mohan Goswami and Another vs.
State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, this Court
H after considering series of decisions observed:
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI. v. K.C. PALANISAMY 891
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.)
"46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not A
used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private
vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the
accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are
of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to
lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise B
of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High
Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the
statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of c
the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot
be sustained.
xxx xxx xxx
50. Civilised countries have recognised that liberty is the D
most precious of all the human rights. The Ame·rican
Declaration of Independence, 1776, French Geclaration of
the Rights of Men and the Citizen, 1789, Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966 all speak with E
one voice-liberty is the natural and inalienable right of
every human being. Similarly, Article 21 of our Constitution
proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his liberty
except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law.
51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves F
interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment
means deprivation of the most precious right of an
individual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely
careful before issuing non-bailable warrants.
G
52. Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is the
interest of the society in maintaining law and order. Both
are extremely important for the survival of a civilised society.
Sometimes in the larger interest of the public and the State
it becomes absolutely imperative to curtail freedom of an H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 17 S.C.R.
A individual for a certain period, only then the non-bailable
warrants should be issued."
39. In G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and
Others, (2000) 2 SCC 636, this Court observed that it is the
8 duty and obligation of the criminal court to exercise a great deal
of caution in issuing the process, particularly when matters are
essentially of civil nature.
40. In the case of S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari
and Others, AIR 1970 SC 786 (at p. 789), this Court has stated
C thus:
"7 ...... It appears to us that, though the Code of Criminal
Procedure gives to the police unfettered powe< to
investigate all cases-where they suspect that a cognizable
D offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an
aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking
the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution under which, if the High Court could be
convinced that the power of investigation has been
exercised by a police officer mala fide, the High Court can
E
always issue a writ of mandamus restraining the police
officer from misusing his legal powers. The fact that the
Code does not contain any other provision giving power
to a Magistrate to stop investigation by the police cannot
be a ground for holding that such a power must be read
F
in Section 159 of the Code."
41. In the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs.
Swapan Kumar Guha and Others, AIR 1982 SC 949 while
examining the power of a police officer in the field of
G investigation of a cognizable offence, Chandrachud, C.J. has
affirmed the view expressed by Mathe~. J. and observed as
follows: (at p.958 of AIR)
"22 ..... There is no such thing like unfettered discretion in
the realm of powers defined by statutes and indeed,
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 893
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
unlimited discretion in that sphere can become a ruthless A
destroyer of personal freedom. The power to investigate
into cognizable offences must, therefore, be exercised
strictly on the condition on which it is granted by the Code.
"
B
42. In the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of
Bihar and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 336, this Court has held
as under:
"6. Now the question to be examined by us is as to whether
on the· facts disclosed in the petition of complaint any C
criminal offence whatsoever. is made out much less
offences under Sections 420/120-B IPC. The only
allegation in the complaint petition against the accused
persons is that they assured the complainant that when
they receive the insurance claim amounting to Rs D
4,20,000, they would pay a sum of Rs 2,60,000 to the
complainant out of that but the same has never been paid.
Apart from that there is no other allegation in the petition
of complaint. It was pointed out on behalf of the
complainant that the accused fraudulently persuaded the E
complainant to agree so that the accused persons may .
take steps for moving the Consumer Forum in relation to
the claim of Rs 4,20,000. It is well settled that every breach
of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating
and only in those cases breach of contract would amount F
to cheating where there was any deception played at the
very inception. If the intention to cheattias developed later
on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present
case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception
there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons G
to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence
under Section 420 IPC.
7. In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any
criminal offence at all much less any offence either under
H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case
is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for
which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly
constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts
allowing the police investigation to continue would amount
B to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the
same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash
the same by exercising the powers under Section 482
CrPC which it has erroneously refused."
C 43. Coming back to the instant case from the affidavits filed
by the parties, the facts which come into light are that the
appellant-Chandran Ratnaswami settled in Canada since 1974.
He is holding executive posts in various companies ·based in
Canada and has made investment in India worth more than 1
billion USO. He is also a Director on the Board of various
D renowned companies including ORE Holdings Limited based
. in Mauritius. The said company ORE entered into a Joint
Venture Agreement (JVA) with C.G. Holdings Private Limited
(respondent No.1 - K.C. Palanisamy's Company) and N.
Athappan for constructing and developing a hotel property,
E shopping complex etc. owned by Cherraan Properties Limited
(CPL) and Vasantha Mills Limited (VML). ORE invested Rs.75
crores and got 45% in Cheran Enterprises Private Limited
(CEPL). Athappan invested Rs. 4 crores and got 10%.
F 44. Disputes arose between the parties when respondent
No.1 alleged to have transferred shares of CPL and VML to
CEPL instead of bringing money and got 45% shareholdings
in CEPL. Respondent No.1 allegedly swindled the said 75
crores deposited by the appellant Company ORE and
G transferred the immovable assets of CPL and VML,
subsidiaries of CEPL.
Consequently, ORE filed Company Petition before the
Company Law Board on account of alleged acts of oppression
and mismanagement indulged by respondent No.1. The matter
H
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 895
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
before the Company Law Board was hotly contested and finally A
the Company Law Board by order dated 13th August, 2008
directed respondent No.1, CG Holdings and CEPL to return the
investment of appellant Company ORE and Athappan with 8%
interest. On payment of money it was directed that respondent
K.C. Palanisamy will take control of CEPL and its subsidiaries. B
Clarification Petition was also disposed of by Company Law
Board on 13th August, 2008.
45. Both the parties moved the Madras High Court by filing
appeals and those Company Appeals were finally disposed of C
on 5th August, 2011 and the order passed by the Company
Law Board was confirmed.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court while
confirming the view taken by the Company Law Board held that
both parties cannot jointly run the business and, therefore, to D
ensure smooth exit of ORE and Athappan, the Company Law
Board passed the order. The said order of the Division Bench
passed in appeals, however, was not challenged by respondent
No.1 K.C. Palanisamy.
E
46. The appellant filed execution case, which is pending.
It further appears that a suit was also filed being O.S.No.90 of
2007 before the District Munsiff Court.
47. Instead of complying with the order of the Company
Law Board and the directions and observations made by the F
Madras. High Court in the aforementioned Company Appeals,
respondent No.1 started filing several criminal complaints
against the appellant. The first complaint was filed by the
respondent before the Economic Offences Wing, Chennai,
alleging that ORE invested only Rs. 75 crores and for not G
bringing Rs. 300 crores in Joint Venture Company. The petition
filed in the High Court seeking direction to EOW to take action
on·the complaint was, however, withdrawn. Respondent No.1
then filed a second complaint before the Judicial Magistrate,
Perundurai which was dismissed after examining respondent H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R.
A No.1 and his two witnesses. The respondent then filed another
complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam without
disclosing the dismissal of the earlier complaint filed before the
Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. The said complaint finally came
to be registered as FIR No.7 of 2007. The appellant moved the
B High Court for quashing the said FIR. In the said petition, the
High Court, after noticing the similar complaint filed earlier by
respondent No.1 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai,
finally observed that the second criminal proc~eding initiated
by respondent No.1 has no merit. The court further passed a
c stringent remark against the conduct of respondent No.1 for
filing cases on the same issue.
48. Respondent No.1 then moved this Court by filing
SLP(Crl.) No.9853 of 2010 alleging the pendency of the protest
petition and non-closure of the criminal case. This Court
D refused to interfere with the order but observed that if any
protest petition is pending the same shall be disposed of in
accordance with law.
49. Curiously enough, on the report of Superintendent of
E Police, Tiruppur, the criminal case in FIR No.7 of 2007 was
directed to be reopened for re-investigation. On this FIR, the
Magistrate before whom the criminal case was pending
passed various orders which were time to time challenged by
the aggrieved party before the High Court and before this Court.
F Simultaneously, the appellant also filed counter criminal cases
against the respondent which were also proceeded and are
pending in those criminal courts.
50. In a nutshell, the dispute arising out of Joint Venture
Agreement has been fully and finally settled by the Company
G Law Board and also the.High Court and several directions were
issued for compliance including the return of the amount by
respondent No.1 to the appellant and to become the sole owner
of those companies.
H 51. It is pertinent to mention here that in course of
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 897
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
arguments the action of Superintendent of Police was_ A
challenged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
In order to justify the action of the Superintendent of Police in
directing the investigation, Mr. P.S. Narsimhan, learned senior
counsel submitted that on the instruction of Inspector General
of Police such reinvestigation was directed by the B
Superintendent of Police. However, no such letter of instruction
has been produced before us by the learned counsel. At this
juncture, we reiterate that the power of Police Officers in the
field of investigation ofa cognizable offence is not unlimited.
Hence, the power during the investigation must .be exercised c
strictly within the limitation prescribed in the Code of Criminal
Procedure and such power may not result in destroying the
personal freedom of a citizen. ·
52. As noticed above, after the dispute was finally settled
by the Company Law Board and the Madras High Court in D
appeal, the respondent approached the Economic Offences ·
Wing, who refused to entertain the complaint. The respondent
then moved the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate,
Perundurai for initiating criminal action against the appellant for
breach of contract, which was dismissed by the Magistrate E
holding the same as nothing but to take vengeance. The
Magistrate further held that if the conditions of the agreement
are violated the respondent has to seek remedy under the
Contract Act or the Company Law instead of filing criminal
case. Suppressing the said complaint and the order passed F
by the Magistrate, the respondent tried again by filing a
complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam for
initiating criminal action against the appellants for the breach
of contract and conspiracy. Although the FIR was registered,
but a closure report as a mistake of fact was prepared. The G
High Court while passing th.e order observed that the Court
would frown upon the conduct of the complainant in indulging
in repeated. harassment of the petitioners-appellants.
Irrespective of the dispute with regard to the closure of the
case, a fresh life was given to the criminal case at the instance H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORT§ [2013] 17 S.C.R.
A of Superintendent of Police, who directed re-investigation and
in course of the said criminal proceeding irrespective of FIR
No.7/2007 the appellants were harassed and on technicalities
various orders for surrender, arrest and their detention had
been passed. As noticed above, in the three writ petitions filed
B by respondent No.1, though not against the appellant but
against the C.B.I. in respect of different transactions, the High
Court dismissing all those writ petitions observed that the
modus operandi of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 ). was
to defraud the person or entity and thereafter approach the
c Courts with multiple proceedings in order to distract attention
from his own misdeeds.
53. Neither the High Court nor the Magisterial Court have
ever applied their mind and considered the conduct of the
respondent and continuance of criminal proceedings in respect
D of the disputes, which are civil in nature and finally adjudicated
by the competent authority i.e. the Company Law Board and
the High Court in appeal.
54. We are of the definite opinion that the complainant has
E manipulated and misused the process of Court so as to deprive
the appellants from their basic right to move free anywhere
inside or outside the country. Moreover, it would be unfair if the
appellants are to be tried in such criminal proceedings arising
out of alleged breach of a Joint Venture Agreement specially
F when such disputes have been finally resolved by the Court of
competent jurisdiction. Hence, allowing the criminal
proceedings arising out of FIR No.7 of 2007 to continue would
be an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, for the
ends of justice such proceedings ought to be quashed. Since
G the High Court failed to look into this aspect of the matter while
passing the impugned order, in our opinion, the same could not
be sustained in law.
55. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals arising out of
SLP (C) No.13120 of 2013, SLP (Crl.) Nos.3273-3274 of 2013
H and SLP (Crl.) Nos.1947-1948 of 2013 are allowed, whereas
CHANDRAN RATNASWAMI v. K.C. PALANISAMY 899
[M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
th.e appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.1924-1926 of 2013 A
a~d SLP (C) Nos.11342-11343 of 2013 are dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
56. Although we do not appreciate the action of a senior
Superintendent of Police, but in view of the order p,assed in
8
these appeals, we do not want to proceed any further in
Contempt Petition (C) No.166 of 2013, which stands disposed
of.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeals and contempt petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "abuse of process"Sign in to search