IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3755 OF 2012

DISTRICT: PUNE

In the matter of Article 226 of the

Constitution of India;

And

In the matter of non Registration of

FIR on complaint filed on 5th May

2012 at Bund Garden Police

Station, Pune (Annexure A is a

copy of complaint filed )

1. RAJAGOPALAN SRIDHAR

AGE: 47 Years, OCC; Nil

R/a: B-11, Kumar Meadows,

Manjiri, Pune-37.

2. SANJEEV BANGAD

AGE: 44 Years, OCC: Nil

R/a: H-702, Cosmos, Magarapattacity,

Hadapsar, Pune-28.

….Petitioners

VERSUS

1. State of Maharashtra …..Respondent No 1

2. Mr. U.A Sonawane …..Respondent No 2Sr. Police Inspector,Bund Garden Police Station,Pune.

TO,

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE

OTHER HON’BLE PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HIGH

COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED:

2

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The Petitioners are citizens of India and are

residing at the aforementioned address. The

petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 &

2 in C.R. No. 387 of 2009 lodged by Synfera

Engineering & Construction Limited

(hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”);

through their authorized representative Mr

Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani who is a close

relative of Tulsi Tanti and was in fact never

ever connected to the activities of shipping and

he is a director of another Tulsi Tanti family

controlled company i.e. Sarjan Realities

limited, at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune,

stating that the accused conspired to illegally

siphon money from the business of the

Complainant. The Petitioners state that they

have no criminal track record and Petitioner

No.1 has a track record of over 24 years’

experience in Gov., Banks and Companies and

Petitioner No.2 who is engineering and

management Graduate has a track record of

over 16 years in various organisations.

Respondent No 1 is the State of Maharashtra

3

and Respondent no 2 is the Police Inspector

(crime) at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune.

2. The Petitioners state that Mr. Nilesh

Vallabhdas Dhanani filed complaint with Bund

Garden Police Station on 18th August 2009

wherein details of alleged wrong /illegal

transactions were detailed (Annexure B is

copy of complaint filed by Mr. Nilesh

Vallabhdas Dhanani). The said complaint did

not mention that that the Petitioners were

employees of the complainant nor it mention

that Mr. Nilesh Dhanani was holding power on

behalf of Synefra Engineering and

Constructions limited to file the complaint. The

said complaint does not find any mention

either in the FIR or in the charge sheet

however the FIR does mention that

information about alleged crime was

received in writing at 1830 HRS on 18th

September 2009 which is patently

incorrect (Annexure C is copy of FIR dated

18th September 2009). The complaint filed on

18th August 2009 and the statement of Mr.

Nilesh Dhanani recorded on 18th September

4

2009 and which only forms part of FIR are

materially different in as much as that Mr.

Nilesh Dhanani now claimed to have power

from complainant to file the complaint though

no such board resolution giving power to Mr.

Nilesh Dhanani is submitted till date. The

statement of Mr. Nilesh Dhanani now claimed

the Petitioners to be ex-employees of the

complainant (Annexure D is statement of

Mr. Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani, dated 18th

September 2009 and is duly countersigned

by the Sr. Police Inspector of Bund Garden

Police Station ).

3. It is a case of the Complainant in the

complaint recorded on 18th September 2009

that the Complainant Company was engaged in

shipping business during 2006-08 and that the

Petitioners are Ex-Employees of the

complainant. It is complainant’s further case

that the accused fraudulently diverted

huge amounts and profits of the Complainant

Company to the alleged Shell Company

owned/controlled by the petitioners. It is

further case that the accused with malafide

5

intent created number of forged documents

and electronic records. He also said that the

accused during the period between 2006 and

2008 cheated the complainant company by

misrepresenting International Clients to remit

part of freight (for and on behalf of the

Complainant company) in the Bank accounts

with various overseas Banks including Swiss

Bank belonging to various Shell companies

incorporated by the accused in different parts

of the world and such companies are owned

and controlled by ex-employees of the

complainant company. The petitioners here

itself state that this statement is absolutely lie

and misleading and that the Petitioners were

never in employment of the Complainant

company. The Petitioners further state that by

a written communication by the CMD of Suzlon

Energy Limited ( hereinafter referred as SEL)

which employed the petitioners, it was stated

that SEL was never in control of the activities

of the complainant nor its employees as such,

apart from the fact that Suzlon Energy Limited

which employed the Petitioners, in its RED

HERRING PROSPECTUS filed with SEBI on

6

12th September 2005, at page xvii, in the last

paragraph has clearly stated that “Suzlon

Energy Limited does not exercise any degree

of control, directly or indirectly , over the

business or operations of any of its associate

companies…(Annexure E is relevant part of

the RED HERRING PROSPECTUS )” and

hence the petitioners humbly states that such

statement by the complainant is misleading

and malafide is made to deceive the court thus

is an act of fraud onto the court. Mr. Harish

Mehta who is one of the Directors of Synefra in

his affidavit before an Australian court in an

admiralty case initially amongst Beluga

Shipping, Germany, Headway Shipping, Hong

Kong and Suzlon Energy Limited, India, has

clearly stated that there was no secondment of

Petitioner no 2 who was employed with Suzlon

Energy Limited (Annexure F is a copy of the

said affidavit). The petitioners also state that

the Complainant is a closely held Ltd Company

and is not listed on any Stock Exchange

4. It is stated by the Police Inspector, Bund

Garden Police Station, Pune that the

7

Petitioners were arrested by the investigating

team on 18th September 2009 at 1900 HRS.

Prior to arrest of the Petitioners while the

Petitioners were at the Police Station the then

Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate was

submitted by the Petitioners a complaint

detailing the sequences of events and massive

misappropriation of profits of Public Listed

Suzlon Energy Limited to Promoter owned

companies by the Promoters in connivance

with other senior management of Suzlon

Energy Limited and Jitendra Tanti, Harish

Mehta, Kirti Vagadia and others. The

Petitioners also informed the then

Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate that

the actions of complainant are malafide and

substantial facts were withheld including that

the complainant company had exited business

of shipping on 1st November 2007 by way of a

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT dated 1st November

2007 duly signed by a director of complainant

company (Annexure G is a copy of the said

DEED OF ASSIGNMENT) and wherein 4

ships were transferred to complainant’s then

100% subsidiary SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd,

8

Singapore and that the complainant wanted

to victimise the petitioners only to protect

exposure of their illegal actions so that another

Satyam Computers like scam did not break out

and the real truth behind the huge siphoning

of funds is not exposed to the general public.

The Petitioners also humbly state that this was

at the time soon after the Satyam scam and

during this period Suzlon Energy Ltd and the

Complainant were making huge losses due to

the alleged siphoning of funds of hundreds of

crores.

5. The Petitioners further submit that in the

complaint given on 18th September 2009, the

sequence of events were explained which

negated the allegations levelled in the

complaint of the Complainant. It was also

explained that allegations were based on

assumptions with complete disregard to the

fact that the complainant had already exited

the business of shipping on 1st November

2007 and therefore transactions after this date

could not belong to the complainant. The other

transactions prior to Complainant exiting

9

business of shipping on 1st November 2007,

the funds transferred did not belong to the

complainant as a few ships were already given

to commercial managers and the funds

transferred to companies allegedly

owned/controlled by Petitioners were funds of

these commercial managers and were

transferred for valid business purposes. The

Petitioners further state that a court in

Germany where Petitioner No 1 was arrested

has given an independent finding that the

arrest of Petitioner No 1 in India is in some

way connected with the findings of the court in

Germany wherein the court ruled that Mr.

Tulsi Tanti and Suzlon Energy Limited were

connected with tax evasion and other acts (

Annexure H is a copy of the referred

Judgement along with its convenience

English translation )

6. In the complaint the Petitioners detailed the

culture of fraud, misrepresentations,

diversions of Public funds and forgery of

documents which exist at Public Listed Suzlon

Energy Limited and wherein unsuspecting

10

employees of Public Listed Suzlon Energy

Limited are made to work for promoter (Tanti

family) owned other companies and then they

also held liable for not supporting diversion of

funds from Public listed Suzlon Energy Limited

to Promoter owned companies. The

complaint filed by the Petitioners included

one such email correspondence dated 19th

September 2008, between Petitioner no 1

and Kirti Vagadia (Annexure I) CFO of

Suzlon Energy Limited and financial

advisor to Mr. Tulsi Tanti wherein an offer

of freight obtained by Petitioner no 2 for

carriage of Suzlon Energy Limited’s goods

from Europe to USA at USD 165/RT was

ultimately not considered and Tanti

controlled SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd,

Singapore, was allowed to carry the same

cargo at more than 200% to 400% of the

cost offered by Petitioner no 2 (Annexure J

is set of invoices paid by Suzlon Energy

Limited to SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd,

Singapore, wherein freight rate paid is

200% to 400% higher than offered by

Petitioner no 2). This clearly shows that

11

any one such as Petitioners who did not

support the designs of management to

divert funds from Public Listed Suzlon

Energy Limited to Tanti family controlled

company was to be victimised.

7. The Petitioners state that the then

Investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate asked

the Petitioners to type complaint on his laptop

and the same was duly submitted to him. He

assured that he would take necessary actions

but for unknown reasons, did not register the

complaint of the Petitioners and proceeded to

investigate only the complaint filed by

complainant completely disregarding the facts

submitted in the complaint of the Petitioners.

The then Investigating officer Mr.

Sudhakar Kate then went on to get the

computer hard discs, pen drives and other

information storage devices allegedly

recovered from the Petitioners examined

by a private forensic laboratory Mahindra

Info (Annexure K is a copy of Pachnama

wherein de-sealing, handing over of the

computer hard discs, pen drives etc and

12

sealing of the computer hard discs, pen

drives after examination, is recorded and

is duly signed by the representative of

Mahindra Info who examined the

Computer hard discs, pen drives etc ) who

was sponsored by the complainant. It is

very likely that substantial evidences

contained in these computer hard discs,

pen drives and other information storage

devices allegedly recovered from the

Petitioners have been tempered with

/destroyed at the behest of the

complainant. The then Investigating Officer

Mr.Sudhakar Kate then went on to send the

same computer hard discs, pen drives etc

to state forensic laboratory a goods 85

days after they were allegedly recovered

from the Petitioners (Annexure L is copy

of the covering letter under which the

computer hard discs, pen drives were sent

to State Forensic Laboratory). Since the

arrest of Petitioners, the Petitioners had no

wherewithal to pursue the non registration of

their complaint and the family members of the

Petitioners were also continuously harassed by

13

the police and the complainant due to which

they were not staying in Pune. Upon release on

bail the Petitioners were threatened by the

then Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate

to settle the matter with complainants. The

affidavit recorded by the Petitioner no 1 and

which is submitted to Supreme Court is

Annexed M whereas affidavit recorded by

Petitioner no 2 is Annexed N. The Petitioner

no 2 then filed a complaint with the

Commissioner of Police, Pune, for all violations

of Statutory Provisions of Law and Human

Rights Violations on 15th March 2012 and

understandably the then Investigating officer

Mr. Sudhakar Kate was transferred on this

complaint. The Petitioners submit that the

once the then Investigating Officer Mr.

Sudhakar Kate was transferred the Petitioners

re-filed the complaint on 5th May 2012 which

is since pending for conversion into FIR. The

Petitioners further submit that on around 11th

July 2012 the Police Station issued orders for

recording statement of Petitioners however the

officer at Police Station wanted the Petitioner

Complaint translated in Marathi which the

14

Petitioners did, at their expense, submit just a

few days later however despite the same the

Complaint remains without any action.

8. The Petitioners state that Jitendra Tanti, a

director of Synefra Engineering and

Constructions Limited and a brother of Tulsi

Tanti, Chairman and Managing Director of

Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited, signed

ship charter party contracts with Corporate

Guarantees of Suzlon Energy Limited for

performance of ships chartered by Synefra

Engineering and Constructions Limited

(Annexure O is a ship hire contract signed

by Jitendra Tanti, MD of Synefra

Engineering and Constructions Limited,

wherein Corporate Guarantee of Public

Listed Suzlon Energy is consented ). The

Petitioners state that no board resolution was

ever passed by Board of Directors of Suzlon

Energy Limited authorising Jitendra Tanti to

sign such contracts for and on behalf of

Synefra Engineering and Constructions

Limited with Corporate guarantees from

Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited for

15

personal benefits. The Petitioners further state

that though the ships with Corporate

Guarantee of Public Listed Suzlon Energy

Limited were chartered by Synefra

Engineering and Constructions Limited, it

(Synefra) did not deploy any funds nor did it

ever employ a single person for its shipping

business. And the several people, all employed

with Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited,

were made to look after the business of Tusli

Tanti family owned Synefra. Thus Synefra

booked massive profits without any employee

and any other expense. Even the office set up,

stationery, huge travelling costs; etc expenses

were borne by Suzlon Energy Limited.

9. The Petitioners further submit that Harish

Mehta, another director of Synefra

Engineering and Constructions Limited and a

family friend of Tulsi Tanti, Chairman and

Managing Director of Public Listed Suzlon

Energy Limited, filed an affidavit in a

proceeding in an admiralty proceeding in

Australia initially amongst Beluga Shipping,

Germany, Headway Shipping, Hong Kong and

16

Suzlon Energy Limited, India, wherein a forged

board resolution of Synefra (Annexure F is a

copy of affidavit filed by Mr. Harish Mehta

along with concerned Board Resolution)

was submitted with a view to mislead the

court and to obtain a favourable order from the

concerned court and is thus a fraud onto the

court. The board resolution (Annexure F is a

copy of the affidavit which contains a copy

of Board Resolution) States that the Board

of Synefra Engineering and Constructions

Limited f/k/a Suzlon Infrastructure Limited

a/k/a Aspen Infrastructure Limited, decided to

amend the object clause of its MOA on 30th

MARCH 2006 to include Business of Shipping

and in the same Board Resolution resolved to

commence business of Shipping. The date of

30th March 2006 was put because the first

ship M.V. Beluga Spirit came under control of

complainant on 30th March 2006 whereas the

fact is the first ship M.V. Beluga Spirit was

chartered by Complainant (Synefra) on 24th

February 2006 with corporate Guarantee from

Suzlon Energy Limited (Annexure O is a copy

of the said charter party contract) and the

17

contract was signed by Jitendra Tanti who is

another Director of Synefra. The Board

Resolution obtained by the petitioners from

Registrar of Companies carries date of 24th

April 2006 for the same Board Resolution

(Annexure P is a copy of the Board of

Resolution filed with Registrar of

Companies, Pune).

10. The Petitioners further submit that Tulsi Tanti,

Kirti Vagadia and others including Auditors of

Suzlon Energy Limited fudged the books of

accounts of Suzlon Energy Limited by

consistently showing higher sales and profits

by way of booking advanced sales on the basis

of “Received for Shipment” “Bills of Ladings”

(Annexure Q is a set of some bills of lading

which are marked “Received for

Shipment”). Received for shipment bills of

lading only indicate arrival of cargo at port and

not shipment (export ) thus does not constitute

instrument of title of goods ( as without the

goods actually having been loaded onto a ship,

the title of ownership of goods does not

transfer to third party i.e. ship owner and thus

18

the ownership of goods remain in the name of

shipper/exporter) (such “Received for

Shipment” Bills of Ladings are not accepted by

any Government of India departments viz

Customs, Finance, Commerce etc as any proof

of Export) but such Received for Shipment bills

of lading were used for 30 to 50% of export

sales for each quarter from July 2007 until the

Petitioners left the employer Suzlon Energy

Limited (Annexure R is a copy of email

exchanged between Kirti Vagadia, CFO of

SEL, Toin Van Megan, CEO of SEL and

Sridhar Rajagopalan wherein details of

such bills of ladings and corresponding

delays are provided ). This advance sale was

manipulated to the extent that in many cases

goods did not even reach port and therefore

were not even in custody of ship agents

(Annexure S is a copy of email sent by ship

agent at Chennai wherein he refused to

provide even “Received for Shipment”

Bills of Ladings because the cargo was not

in his possession) who would issue Received

for Shipment bill of ladings. In any case even

the agents at port did not possess any

19

authority from the Ship Owners to issue such

“Received for Shipment” Bills of Lading and

thus clearly acted beyond their authorities at

the behest of Suzlon Energy Limited. In most

of above mentioned cases the goods were

actually shipped more than 60 days later thus

practically into the end of the following

quarter and in some cases more than 90 days

i.e. into the quarter after the following quarter

( 2 quarter advance sales) (Annexure R is a

copy of relevant email exchange as

referred in above) By such abusive advance

sales Suzlon Energy Limited beat stock market

expectations and the share price of Suzlon

Energy Limited zoomed to Rs 2200/share

(basis Rs 10/share face value which translates

to Rs 460/Share for Rs 2/share current face

value). During this period of June 2007 to Dec

2008, Suzlon Energy Limited raised several

thousand crores rupees by way of Private

Placement of shares, QIB, FCCBs, etc. at

artificially inflated share prices. When exports

dipped and it was no longer possible for Suzlon

Energy Limited to book advance sales, the

company performance tumbled and so the

20

share price which is currently quoting at Rs

15-16/share. Thus by artificially inflating books

of accounts the ordinary investing Public of

India and the world have lost not less than Rs

23000 crore.

11. The Petitioners submit that in a case in

Australia where Suzlon Energy Limited and

one Headway Shipping Limited, Hong Kong,

were parties, Suzlon Energy Limited deposited

to court the entire freight outstanding of USD

13.50milion. The court in Australia ordered

release of USD 7 million to Headway

(Annexure T is a copy of statement filed by

the solicitors of Headway Shipping

Limited, Hk, wherein details of settlement

are mentioned), HK pending decision but in

the meantime Headway closed down and the

balance USD 6.350 million with Australia

Court instead of being retained by Suzlon

Energy Limited, was understandably, given to

Tanti family owned S E Shipping Lines Pte Ltd,

Singapore. Thus the invoices and books of

accounts of Suzlon Energy Limited were

manipulated to legalise payment of USD 6.350

21

million to SE Shipping, Singapore. The

investors, Public Sector Banks and others were

thus cheated by Tulsi Tanti and others.

12. The Petitioners submit that USD 2.8 million

due to commercial managers was also

fraudulently and by forging payment

advises/invoices, adjusting the books of

account was transferred directly/indirectly to

Tanti family controlled companies. A part

transfer of USD 1.23 to BIP Carriers ( a

company directly/indirectly controlled by Tanti

family) is (Annexure U is a copy of account

statement of MIT, France, wherein

transfer of USD 1.25 million to BIP

carriers is refleced). This clearly shows that

though the Public Listed Suzlon Energy

Limited paid the invoices due to commercial

managers but fraudulently paid to Tanti

family controlled companies.

13. The Petitioners further submit that ship hire

Invoices from Beluga (Ship Owner) were

regularly forged to allow accounting

manipulations (Annexure V are copies of

22

original Beluga Shipping Invoices along

with corresponding forged invoices).

14. The Petitioners submit that though Tulsi Tanti

signed a relationship matrix for business

between Suzlon Energy Limited and S E

Shipping Lines Pte Ltd, Singapore ( a Tanti

family owned and controlled company in

Singapore) whereby business was to be given

to SE Shipping Lines pte Ltd, Singapore

subject to 15% discount to market freight

however Gaurav Bansal, CEO of SE Shipping

Lines, Singapore not only demanded much

higher than existing freights and the same was

paid by Kirti Vagadia, CFO, Suzlon Energy

Limited, to fund the acquisition of new ships

and expansions business plan of SE Shipping

Lines, Singapore. The single transaction

annexed caused loss of more than Rs 4 Crores

and there are several such transactions

(Annexure I is an email exchange between

Kirti Vagadia, CFO, SEL, and Sridhar

Rajagopalan wherein this loss caused to

SEL is mentioned).

23

15. The complaint shows with evidence how Kirti

Vagadia, CFO, Suzlon Energy Limited,

disowned his holy duty towards his employer

and also towards the Investing Public and

favoured and allowed significantly higher ship

ocean freight to be paid to Tanti controlled

companies (Annexure J is a set of Invoices

raised by SE Shipping Lines Pte Ltd,

Singapore, on SEL with significantly

higher freights).

16 The Petitioners submit that the Directors and

Promoters of Suzlon Energy Limited have been

misleading the investing Public by invariably

stating that all related party transactions are

at arm’s length transactions and Suzlon

Energy Ltd and its employees do not exercise

any control on their promoter companies

(Annexure W is a copy of the relevant part

of the PLACEMENT DOCUMENT dated 17th

December 2007, made to prospecting

investors towards Qualified Institution

Placement of SEL equity at a significant

premium of Rs 1907/share of face value Rs

10/each ), however the related party

24

transactions are without any third party

competitive bidding and are invariably at

significantly higher prices than prevailing

market prices. Even in cases where alternate

offers from third parties were received, such

offers were rejected in favour of Promoter

owned companies and sometimes even at

300% higher costs. The Promoter owned

companies made profits while Public Limited

Suzlon Energy Limited continues to make

losses.

17. The Petitioners state that they were

employed with Suzlon Energy Limited and

were asked to coordinate the business of

Shipping in Synefra with a view to ensure

that Suzlon Energy Limited exports

reached worldwide destinations in time

and within budgeted costs. In such

situations of conflicting interest and

Petitioners state that decisions were taken

in the interest of employer i.e. Public

Listed Suzlon Eenrgy Limited, the

Complainant Synefra Engineering and

Constructions Limited who is just a

25

related party to Suzlon Energy Limited

filed a criminal case alleging forgery,

misappropriation and breach of trust

against the Petitioners. The true position

of the Petitioners is brought out in their

complaint which remains un-investigated.

18. Petitioners submit that during September

2008, Gaurav Bansal, CEO of SE Shipping

Lines, Singapore, in active conspiracy with

Tulsi Tanti and Kirti Vagadia, misrepresented

to shipping world that SE Shipping Lines,

Singapore was exclusive to Suzlon Energy

Limited’s exports and could get guarantees

signed by Tulsi Tanti himself (Annexure X is

an email correspondence from Mr. Jaap of

Ship Owing company M/s Beluga Shipping,

Germany and which is included in the

charge sheet filed against the Petitioners )

thus could charge significantly higher freights

from Suzlon Energy Limited.

19. The Petitioners submit that the referred

complaint was informed to Commissioner of

Police, Pune and also to Deputy Commissioner

26

of Police, Zone II by emails and no actions

have been initiated so far (Annexure Y is

copy of emails sent to Commissioner and

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Pune).

20. The Petitioners further state that Petitioner no

1 was a key employee of Public Listed Suzlon

Energy limited and was issued substantial

number of equity shares from Promoter Quota

prior to Suzlon Energy Limited’s IPO. He was

further issued significant number of equity

shares under ESOPs post IPO. He was holding

upto 11 lac equity shares during 2006-2008

and even now he holds more than 2.10 lac

shares of Suzlon Energy Limited.

21. Petitioners further state that the persons

named in complaint of the Petitioners have a

habit of destroying incriminating evidences.

( Annexure Z is an email communication

from CFO of Suzlon Energy Limited and

advisor to Mr. Tulsi Tanti wherein he is

instructing destruction of certain sensitive

emails relating to Hansen Transmissions

Limited). The Petitioners further submit that

27

what is stated in this petition is only a tip of

iceberg and that accounting fraud, forgery of

documents and cheating investors, Banks and

other financial institutions etc by employees of

Suzlon Energy Limited at the instance of Key

Management persons is rampant and a

thorough investigation would also reveal the

financial crimes perpetrated by Suzlon Energy

Limited and it’s related and associated

companies on Public Financial Institutions like

IDFC limited etc and public funds raised in

London by listing Hansen Transmissions

Limited, Belgium, which was at relevant time a

100% subsidiary of Suzlon Energy Limited.

22. Being aggrieved by the deliberate lethargy of

the Police and its complicity with original

complainant in not converting Petitioner’s

complaint in FIR, grave prejudice is being

caused to the Petitioners, the Investing Public

of the world and more particularly of this

nation, the Petitioners beg to invoke the writ

….

28

GROUNDS

1. That non registration of complaint of

Petitioners into FIR despite more than 4

months of officially lodging it and more

than 36 months after submitting it to

then Investigating Officer Mr. Sudhakar

Kate, there is every likelihood of

valuable evidences having been

tempered already and potential

witnesses influenced much to the

prejudice of the Petitioners and the

Public of this nation.

2. The Petitioners have submitted

evidences of systematic destruction of

evidences by Complainant and thus the

delay in registration of FIR and

commencement of investigation thereof

is bound to adversely affect exposure of

India’s biggest corporate fraud.

29

3. The complaint filed by the Petitioners

discloses cognizable offenses of the

extreme gravity and seriousness against

not only the investing public worldwide

but also against Government of India

and therefore needs

thorough investigation by a competent

agency /officer.

4. The complaint of Petitioners clearly sets

out massive diversion of funds from

Public Listed Suzlon Energy Limited to

Tulsi Tanti family promoted companies

and the preliminary estimates of more

Rs 650 crores fraudulently diverted to

Tanti family controlled companies apart

from more than Rs 23,00 crores loss to

Investing Public worldwide makes it an

extremely serious offence of proportions

bigger than ill famous Satyam Computer

scam and therefore needs proper

investigation.

5. That it is more than 4 months since

complaint was re-filed but non

30

registration of the same in FIR is

causing prejudice to the Petitioners and

the Public of this nation.

6. That the complainant is politically well

connected in the state having majority

of its wind energy/related business in

the state is using all connections to

thwart the fair process of law to the

prejudice of Petitioners.

7. That the complainant is in habit of

destroying evidences and if immediate

investigation is not ordered, valuable

evidences may be lost.

8. The Petitioner therefore prays that :-

A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a

Writ of Mandamus and direct registration of

Petitioner’s complaint into FIR under

relevant sections of IPC.

B) That this Hon’ble court be pleased to direct

Investigation by a competent agency

considering the fact that the named

31

accused Persons and Companies are

politically well connected, more so within

the state of Maharashtra.

C) For such further and other reliefs as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

For this act of kindness and justice the Petitioner

shall as in duty bound forever pray.

Mumbai,

Dated: Advocate for the

Petitioners.

32

VERIFICATION

We, 1. Rajagopalan Sridhar and 2. Sanjeev Bangad,

take oath and state on solemn affirmation that what is

stated in the aforesaid application is true to our

knowledge and we believe the same to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Pune on this day of September

2012

DEPONENT 1

DEPONENT 2

Before me.

Identified by me.

33

Advocate.

34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012

DISTRICT: PUNE

Rajagopalan Sridhar & Another ) ….Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Others ) – Respondents

SYNOPSIS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr. No. Date Event-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. - The Petitioners are citizens of India and are

residing at the aforementioned address. The

Petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos. 1 & 2

in C.R. No. 387 of 2009 lodged by Synfera

Engineering & Construction Limited

(hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant”);

through their authorized representative Mr

Nilesh Vallabhdas Dhanani in Bundgarden

Police Station stating that the accused

conspired to illegally siphon money from the

business of the Complainant.

2. - It is a case of the Complainant that the

Complainant Company was engaged in

shipping business during 2006-08 and it is the

35

submission of the complainant that the

petitioners are Ex-Employees of the

complainant. It is its further case that the

accused fraudulently diverted huge amounts

and profits of the Complainant Company to the

alleged Shell Company owned/controlled by

the petitioners. It is further case that the

accused with malafide intent created number of

forged documents and electronic records. Also

that the accused during the period between

2006 and 2008 cheated the complainant

company by misrepresenting International

Clients to remit part of freight (for and on

behalf of the Complainant company) in the

Bank accounts with various overseas Banks

including Swiss Bank belonging to various

Shell companies incorporated by the accused in

different parts of the world and such companies

are owned and controlled by ex-employees of

the complainant company.

3. - The Petitioners were arrested by the

investigating team led Investigating officer Mr.

Sudhakar Kate, then Police Inspector at Bund

Garden Police Station, Pune, on 18th September

2009 and prior to which the Petitioners filed a

complaint detailing sequence of events and that

36

the complaint of the complainant was malafide

and filed with misleading facts and by

suppressing/ concealing vital facts. The

complaint of Petitioners detailed how no loss

was suffered by the complainant and listed

various dealings which the Promoters and other

senior management of Public listed Suzlon

Energy Limited were indulging in to

divest/divert Public Listed Suzlon Energy

Limited of its profits to Promoter owned

companies.

4. 05/05/2012 - The Petitioner’s complaint was not registered

and therefore not investigated. Thereafter upon

release on bail the Petitioners re-filed their

complaint which contains substantial part of

what was filed in writing with then

investigating officer Mr. Sudhakar Kate on 18th

September 2009..

5. 24th June 2012 Petitioner no 2 sent emails to Commissioner of

Police, Pune and also to Deputy Commissioner

of Police, Pune requesting intervention in

registration of FIR and also to explain

misconduct of then Investigating officer Mr.

Sudhakar Kate. -

- Hence the present Writ Petition

37

A) ACTS REFERRED TO :

1) Criminal Procedure Code 1973.

2) Indian Penal Code.

B) AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON : Nil at present.

C) POINTS TO BE URGED :

As contained in the grounds of the Petition.

Mumbai,

Dated: Advocate for the Petitioners.

38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2012

DISTRICT: PUNE

Rajagopalan Sridhar & Another ) ….Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Others ) – Respondents

SYNOPSIS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sr.No. Annex. Particulars Page Nos.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) ---- Synopsis

2) ---- Memo of Petition

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAST PAGE-

39