The Special Court had on May 7 issued NBWs against Shaik on the ground that she had failed to comply with the Supreme Court orders dated April 8 directing her to surrender before the jail authorities within one week in relation to alleged Ponzi schemes.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court was not inclined to grant interim stay or set aside the non-bailable warrants issued against Nowhera Shaik, managing director of the Heera Group by the Special Court for PMLA cases at Nampally.
Justice E.V. Venugopal, however, directed the Enforcement Directorate and Telangana government to submit their contention on her petition and adjourned the matter till after the vacation of the High Court. Meanwhile the court directed Shaik to surrender before the authorities.
Shaik’s counsels A. Padma Chary and Srinivas Pendota submitted that the Special Court had not considered their client’s willingness to surrender and to comply with the Supreme Court orders in relation to execution of sale deeds to the auction purchasers of 16 properties. They submitted that the lapses were on part of the ED, in completing the registration process.
The Special Court had on May 7 issued NBWs against Shaik on the ground that she had failed to comply with the Supreme Court orders dated April 8 directing her to surrender before the jail authorities within one week in relation to alleged Ponzi schemes. The apex court made it clear that upon surrender and expression of willingness by Shaik, she may be escorted under custody to the offices of the sub- registrar(s) concerned for execution and registration of sale deeds to the 16 properties which the ED had sold in auctions and whose buyers were awaiting registration.
As she did not comply with the orders, the ED had approached the Nampally court for her arrest and the Special Court issued an NBW.
HC quashes the criminal cases agianst Warner Bros
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal cases registered against Warner Bros. Pictures (India) Private Limited, holding that a purely commercial and contractual dispute cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution for cheating or criminal breach of trust.
Justice N. Tukaramji allowed the writ petitions filed by the company, represented by its managing director Denzil Dias, challenging FIRs registered against it by the Hyderabad police. The dispute arose from theatrical distribution agreements entered into during 2013-14 between Warner Bros. and film distributor Balakrishna Gogineni for the release of films such as ‘Man of Steel’, ‘Pacific Rim’, and ‘Into the Storm’ in the Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Nizam and Marathwada territories.
According to the company, the distributor had repeatedly defaulted on payment schedules despite the films being released. Warner Bros. alleged that after several unsuccessful civil proceedings, including suits seeking specific performance and injunctions against the release of subsequent films, the distributor resorted to filing criminal complaints as a pressure tactic.
The complaints accused the company of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that Warner Bros. had induced the distributor to deposit Rs.25 lakh by assuring continuation of theatrical distribution rights for upcoming films, but later released the films through another distributor and failed to refund the money collected.
Counsel for Warner Bros argued that the complaint lacked the essential ingredients required to constitute criminal offences. Opposing the petitions, counsel for distributor contended that the criminal investigation should be permitted to continue, arguing that the company had dishonestly induced investment and subsequently violated its assurances.
Justice Tukaramji observed that to attract the offence of cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the very beginning of the transaction. The court noted that the parties had executed multiple written agreements over a sustained period and had continued business relations despite alleged payment defaults, which, according to the court, negated any inference of dishonest intention at the inception. The court held that the payments made under commercial agreements constituted contractual consideration and could not be treated as “entrustment” for the purposes of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC.
