Bombay High Court at Goa accepts petitioner’s contention that he is a witness not an accused in the case since he was no longer an employee of the company being charged
Bombay High Court at Goa accepts petitioner’s contention that he is a witness not an accused in the case since he was no longer an employee of the company being charged
Title: Nilesh Sadanand Surve v. Police Inspector
Decided on: August 2, 2023
Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1618
CORAM: HON’BLE JUSTICE M.S. SONAK AND JUSTICE BHARAT P. DESHPANDE
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner of this petition, filed under Section 482 of Cr. P.C, is praying for quashing of FIR registered by Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 3 and Section 5 of Goa Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 1999. The Petitioner claimed that he was working as a Manager with Karmabhoomi Infratech Reality Limited, of which the Chairman and Director are Accused No. 1 and 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Divisional Manager but later resigned from the post of Divisional Director/Area Manager and his resignation was accepted with effect from 11.04.2021. The formal complaint was lodged on 19.01.2023 against the Chairman, Managing Director of Karmabhoomi Infratech Reality Limited having its main office at Mathura (U.P.) and against Petitioner being the Area Manager. But it is clear from the facts that the petitioner had resigned.
Court Analysis and Judgement:
It was argued that the Petitioner has to be considered as a witness in the matter and not an Accused, considering his role in the said financial company as an Area Manager. The allegations of inducement are only against the Chairman and Managing Director of the said financial company and therefore, the Petitioner who was working only as Area Manager/employee of the said financial company, had no role in cheating the investors. The Court accepted this line of argument and held that the Petitioner would be made as a witness and the bank account in the name of the Petitioner would be defreezed. The reasoning was that the petitioner was only an employee of the said financial company and further there are no allegations against him of any inducement or cheating so as to continue him as an Accused in the matter. The Court therefore directed the Respondent to remove the name of Petitioner from the array of Accused and add in the list of witnesses.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Reema Nayak