9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1559X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act, 1956. The company is engaged in the manufacture and trade of apparels through chain of retail stores under the brand name and style of Priknit. The petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director of the Company. Petitioner nos.3 and 4 are the Directors of petitioner no.1 company. Petitioner no.4 joined petitioner no.1 company on 30.11.2009. Opposite party no.2 is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is member of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. and is also an Indian Financial Service provider. On 28.03.2013, a person namely K. Adil, Authorised Signatory of SMC Global Securities Ltd. lodged a complaint under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. It has been alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 approached opposite party no.2 and made an offer of good returns on investment in the petitioner no.1 company. Initially the opposite party no.2 did not show any interest. Petitioner nos.2 and 3 frequently visited the main office of the opposite party no.2 at Delhi and Regional Office at Calcutta to encourage the opposite party no.2 to invest in their company. They stated to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rge-sheet against the present petitioners for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. While making his submission in favour of quashing of the criminal proceeding, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the opposite party no.2 lodged the First Information Report with Bowbazar Police Station on 28.03.2013 and prior to lodging that F.I.R. on 06.06.2012, the opposite party the SMC Global Securities Ltd. filed a petition of complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, District Court, Tis Hazari Delhi against the present petitioners under Sections 406/409/420/468/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 01.09.2012 the opposite party no.2 also filed one complaint case being 190/3 of 2012 before the Learned A.C.J.M., Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi under Section 68 of the Companies Act and on 28.02.2013, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi was pleased to dismiss the prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the petition of complaint has been registered as C.C.No.253/1/15. Learned Counsel has contended that the F.I.R. in connection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arat V. Jaswantlal Nathalal reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 700, 2) Munshi Ram and Others V. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 702, 3) Murari Lal Gupta V. Gopi Singh reported in (2005)13 SCC 699, 4) Venu Menon V. Hathway Investment (P) Ltd. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 701, 5) V.Y. Jose and Another V. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2009)3 SCC 78, 6) Union of India and Others V. Shantiranjan Sarkar reported in (2009) 3 SCC 90, 7) Alpic Finance Ltd. V. P. Sadasivan and Another reported in (2001)3 SCC 513, 8) Keyur J.Shah Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2013 SCC Online Cal 22825. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed his reliance on the following judgments:- 1) M/s. Indian Oil Corporation V. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2780. 2) Vikrama Shama Shetty V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2792. 3) Smti Rita Mazumdar Vs. The State of Assam & Ors. of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Petition No. 702 of 2012. 4) State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sanjay of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2011. 5) V. Ravi Kumar Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I intend to cite the celebrated judgment of our Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426. In the said judgment our Apex Court laid down the parameters when the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised. Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is mentioned below:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record it appears that the petitioners falsely informed the complainant that the shares were allotted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the transaction in question between the parties as revealed from the contents of the First Information Report was purely a sale transaction or commercial transaction and the question of cheating does not arise at all. At the time of perusal of the First Information Report, it appears that the petitioners induced the complainant company to purchase the shares in question by misrepresentations and false assurance. In view of the provision contained in Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the intention of the offender who induces the complainant is the decisive in discerning whether the offence of cheating was committed or not. In fact, it cannot be denied that many a cheatings are being committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions. In the present case, the allegation in the First Information Report disclosed the offences alleged. Moreover, the allegations made in the F.I.R. disclosed that the petitioners induced the complainant to purchase share or invest money by wilful misrepresentation. I have carefull ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
