9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 617 - HC - Companies LawOffence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - principle of jurisdiction in civil law - HELD THAT - All these petitions have been filed by the accused persons at the very initial stage i.e. after registration of FIR. It is clear case of the State that despite issuance of notices under Section 41 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners at their given addresses, they have failed to join the investigation. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have neither applied for anticipatory bail nor regular bail and have filed the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and the Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 25.03.2021, directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners with regard to FIR in question, which, in fact, implies that blanket stay of arrest has been granted to the petitioners. The main argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the complainant has not come forward to seek specific performance of agreement(s) to sell, on the face of it, is liable to be rejected, for the reason that there is encumbrance on the properties, therefore, once the complainant came to know that the properties cannot be transferred in pursuance to agreements to sell, as there was charge/encumbrance over the same, it cannot be termed that the dispute is purely of civil nature. It is case of the complainant that the petitioners have concealed about status of the properties, which were to be transferred in pursuance to the agreements to sell, therefore, on the face of it, the criminal prosecution is maintainable, independent of the fact that some proceedings before the NCLT, New Delhi are pending. The petitioners could not dispute the fact that properties i.e. Votive Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Hacienda Infosoftech Pvt. Ltd. and Challengerz Websolutions Pvt. Ltd., sought to be sold by way of agreements to sell are not clear, as even efforts were made to sell the same to another company namely Max Estates Pvt. Ltd. to raise the funds, therefore, it cannot be said that on the face of it, no offence is made out, to quash the FIR. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of FIR under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 to 471, 120-B IPC. 2. Nature of the dispute: civil vs. criminal. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of Khanna Police. 4. Maintainability of the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. Allegations of forgery and conspiracy. 6. Pending civil proceedings before NCLT. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of FIR under Sections 420, 406, 465, 467 to 471, 120-B IPC: The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR registered against them, arguing that it was primarily a civil dispute and the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence. The court found that the allegations in the FIR, which included fraudulent inducement, forgery, and conspiracy, prima facie disclosed the commission of cognizable offences. The court emphasized that the FIR could not be quashed at this stage as it raised disputed questions of fact that required thorough investigation. 2. Nature of the dispute: civil vs. criminal: The petitioners argued that the dispute was civil in nature, arising out of agreements to sell, and should be resolved through civil litigation. The court rejected this argument, stating that the allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy indicated a criminal intent from the inception of the transaction. The court noted that the complainant had been induced to part with a significant amount of money based on false representations and forged documents, which justified criminal proceedings. 3. Territorial jurisdiction of Khanna Police: The petitioners contended that the Khanna Police lacked territorial jurisdiction to register the FIR as the alleged offences occurred in Delhi/NCR. The court dismissed this argument, citing Section 182 Cr.P.C., which allows for the trial of offences of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property within the jurisdiction where the property was delivered or received. Since the money was transferred from the complainant's account in Khanna, the Khanna Police had jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIR. 4. Maintainability of the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The court referred to the Supreme Court judgments in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kaptan Singh, and Habib Abdullah Jeelani, which held that the power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. The court found that the allegations in the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and raised disputed questions of fact, making it inappropriate to quash the FIR at the initial stage of investigation. 5. Allegations of forgery and conspiracy: The complainant alleged that the petitioners had forged documents and conspired to cheat him out of a significant amount of money. The court noted that the complainant had provided evidence of forged documents and fraudulent actions by the petitioners, which required thorough investigation. The court emphasized that the petitioners' actions, including the concealment of encumbrances on the properties and attempts to sell the same properties to another company, indicated a premeditated conspiracy to defraud the complainant. 6. Pending civil proceedings before NCLT: The petitioners argued that the dispute was already being adjudicated by the NCLT, and the FIR was a counter-blast to the civil proceedings. The court rejected this argument, stating that the proceedings before the NCLT were on different footings and did not preclude criminal prosecution for the alleged offences. The court noted that the allegations in the FIR were independent of the civil proceedings and justified criminal investigation and prosecution. Conclusion: The court dismissed all four petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. The court held that the FIR disclosed cognizable offences, raised disputed questions of fact, and required thorough investigation. The court emphasized that the criminal proceedings were maintainable despite the pending civil proceedings before the NCLT and that the Khanna Police had territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the FIR.
|
