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