Smt. Latha Rajanikanth vs State & another

Pradeep D. Waingankar, J. - This petition is one under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in PCR No.7847/2015 pending on the file of VI A.C.M.M. Court, Bangalore city.

The respondent No.2 M/s. Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., filed a private complaint against the petitioner, wherein it is alleged that complainant is one of the reputed advertising agency in the State of Tamil Nadu. It deals with Post Production works with Production and Entertainment Companies. Recently, it had ventured in the Post Production of film Rajanikanth starrer "Kochadiayan" produced by Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., guaranteed by the petitioner-Smt. Latha Rajanikanth, wife of Rajanikanth with her personal guarantee. The film is directed by the daughter of petitioner Soundarya Ashwin Rajanikanth. It is submitted that the petitioner and J. Murali Manohar, Director of Mediaone Global Entertainment approached the complainant/respondent No.2 and requested Ad Bureau to be the post producer of film "Kochadiayan" and offered 12% pre release guaranteed profit share, personal guarantee from Rajanikanth family, mortgage of Securities and Tamilnadu rights of the film "Kochadiayan". An agreement was signed on 25.04.2014. The petitioner Smt. Latha Rajanikanth had signed the Personal Guarantee in favour of Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., on 04.05.2014 as she was not available on 24.04.2014. The Personal Guarantee executed by the petitioner states as follows:-

"In case any default by Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., to honour the post dated cheques given in favour of Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Smt. Latha Rajanikanth Guarantees to make payment towards the same by direct transfer in the account of the company Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd.,."

The petitioner visited Mr. Abirchanch Nahar, Managing Director of Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., for this business proposal number of times and convinced that she would take the responsibility of the repayment of the money funded to J. Murali Manohar, Director of Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd.,. As per the agreement Ad Bureau funded Rs. 10 crores into the account of Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., through Central Bank of India. The petitioner was required to refund Rs.10 crores plus Rs. 1.2 crores being 12% guaranteed profit. Totally petitioner was required to refund Rs. 11.20 crores to Ad Bureau on 07.05.2014. On 05.05.2014, Mediaone returned 1.2 crores the 12% guaranteed profit and confirmed that the balance of Rs. 10 crores will be returned on 07.05.2014. However, due to the failure of the producer to release the movie on the scheduled date, Ad Bureau was requested to support the project further with extension of time till the release of the movie. Ad Bureau was also requested for a further support to the tune of Rs.20 crores with the same offer of 12% guaranteed profit and also paid Rs.2.40 crores towards the profit. But upon investigation by Punjab National Bank, it was discovered that the funds were not being used for post production but were rather being diverted to repay the past debts which tantamount to cheating and fraud. The petitioner owes money to Ad Bureau Advertising Pvt. Ltd., Exim Bank and many others. The Exim Bank has recently charged the petitioner�s property for non-payment of debts of Rs.22 crores. It is submitted that the petitioner went to media and gave a statement in ail media that she has no business connection with Ad Bureau. As such, a complaint came to be lodged before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Haiasuru Gate Police Station. To quash the private complaint and order referring the private complaint for investigation, this petition is filed.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute is purely a civil dispute between the parties and complaint has been filed just to harass the petitioner in order to compel the petitioner to pay the dues and hence the learned counsel sought to quash the complaint, and the order whereby it was referred for investigation.

The learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant, on the other hand would submit that the petitioner after obtaining huge amount of loan from the complainant has committed offence of cheating, criminal breach of trust and rightly the cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate and the complaint has been referred for investigation.

Admittedly, the complainant has advanced loan to J. Murali Mohan, Director of Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. The complainant, was assured of pre release guaranteed profit share. An amount of Rs.2.40 crores was paid to the complainant by the petitioner towards the share in the profit, it is true that the petitioner had given a guarantee for return of the money. It is equally true that the petitioner failed to refund the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered between the complainant and J. Murali Mohan, Director of Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., Thus, the petitioner has committed a breach of conditions of the agreement. It is also borne out from the averments made out in the complaint that the cheques issued by the petitioner have bounced. A notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been issued to Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd., thus the petitioner has committed a breach of conditions of the agreement. It is also seen that the notice dated 06.01.2015 has been issued invoking guarantee. Thus, the matter is purely of civil in nature. As such, the remedy is to file a suit for damages and also to take action under Section 138 of N.I. Act as the cheques issued are bounced. Therefore, the criminal complaint filed by respondent No. 2 appears to be just to harass the petitioner. No ingredients of Sections 420,463, 196 and 199 of IPC are made out in the complaint. Under such circumstances, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the order taking cognizance on the said complaint by the Magistrate are liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The complaint in PCR No.7847/2015 on the file of VI A.C.M.M., Bangalore and the order referring the complaint for investigation to Halasur Gate Police Station are hereby quashed.