9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrict Gurgaon and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Notice of motion was issued and learned State counsel as well as respondent No.2-in person appeared and contested the petition. Reply was also filed by the State. Before start of arguments, respondent No.2 was asked that a legal aid counsel can be provided to him but he stated that he will pursue his case himself. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No.2-in-person as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that in the present case, FIR was registered on the written complaint of respondent No.2. The brief facts as per the prosecution are that complainant along with his wife Ruby Khare, is the allo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf shows that the main grievance of the complainant is firstly regarding the EDC+IDC rates, secondly that the company violated the Rules and specifically Clause 7 that they have given advertisement before the sanctioning of the plan etc. and they have taken money before obtaining the licence. It is not contested at the time of arguments that the colonies are governed by Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. Section 7 of the said Act prohibits to advertise and transfer plots which states that no person including a property dealer shall, without obtaining the licence under Section 3 , transfer or agree to transfer in any manner plots in a colony or make an advertisement or receive any amount in respect thereof. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o other remedies but in no way, offence under Section 420 or 406 IPC is made out. Moreover, the present petitioners are Directors of the company and there is nothing in the FIR nor any specific role has been attributed against these petitioners. As argued, the company has not been made accused in this case also. It is settled law that in criminal jurisprudence, there is no concept of vicarious liability except specifically provided in the Act. When the company is not made accused, the Directors cannot be held vicariously liable. Further, no specific role has been attributed to present petitioners in the FIR. The copy of the agreement has been placed on the record. In the agreement, it is written that IDC shall mean Infrastructure Developm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
