Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26744 of 2018
Petitioner :- Rohit Batra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Kakkar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rahul Chaudhary
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 6.9.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 1889 of 2018 under sections 420, 406, 415, 418, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., police station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only allegation against the petitioners is that they have introduced respondent no. 3 to the co- accused persons named in the F.I.R. in whose company, the respondent no. 3 has invested money to the tune of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- by cash and cheque in the project T-Z-06 Tech Zone, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. He submits that as per the F.I.R. itself it is evident that a memorandum of understanding was also executed between the informant and the Company and at that time 41 cheques to a tune of Rs. 75,21059/- with 14% assured return were paid to the informant out of the said cheques 28 cheques worth Rs. 50,90,436 were encashed but 13 cheques to a tune of Rs. 24,30,623 were bounced and the informant immediately gave information about the same to the promoters, directors and share holder of the said Company. He submits that the petitioners have no intent to cheat the informant- respondent no. 3. The petitioner no. 1 has his own Company which is in the name of Delhi Nine Realty Consulting Private Limited which is duly registered on 23rd February, 2011 and petitioner no. 2 is a real estate agent, who is also doing his private business by working as a real estate agent. He submits that no memorandum of understanding was signed by the petitioners along with co-accused persons, who are named in the F.I.R. He submits that the petitioners have no concern with either M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited or M/s Earth Iconic Infrastructure Private Limited and there are neither the directors, share holders, promoters nor authorized signatories in the said Companies as such they cannot be held liable in any way for the act done by the directors, promoters or share holders of the said companies and the cheques in question which were bounced also had not been issued by the petitioners, hence the present F.I.R. against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. and another vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2015 Law Suit (SC) 279. He further submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been challenged by co-accused persons in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 26399 of 2018 in which interim protection was given to them by this Court vide order dated 20.9.2018.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. and submitted that the petitioners in collusion with the co-accused persons named in the F.I.R. have induced the respondent no. 3 for investing the money in the project of M/s Earth Infrastructure Limited and their involvement in the present case cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the petitioners were connected with the project and they in collusion with the co-accused persons named in the F.I.R. have duped several investors of their money. So far as interim protection granted to the co-accused persons by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 26399 of 2018 is concerned, the same was granted to them only on account of the fact that they were ladies and while granting interim protection to them the case of other co-accused persons have already been distinguished by this Court. It is submitted that the F.I.R. discloses cognizable offence.
Copy of the aforesaid order has been produced by learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 which is taken on record.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R. or staying the arrest of the petitioners.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Shiraz