CRL. M.C.489 of 2005 Page 1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of order: 4th February, 2008 CRL. M.C. 489 of 2005 & CRL. M.A. No. 1655 of 2005(stay) GOODWILL FOODS P. LTD. & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Ramesh Gupta and Mr. Sunil Sethi, Advocates with Mr. Mukund Kumar, Law Officer. versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Mr. M. M. Kalra, Advocate. Mr. Pawan Behl, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER Dr. S. MURALIDHAR, J. (open court) 1. This petition under Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 16th March, 2001passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate („MM‟) summoning the Petitioner to face trial in Complaint Case No. 711/1 of 2008 titled Bhajan Singh Samra v. Kanwaljeet Singh Sidhu & Ors. under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. 2. The complaint describes the complainant as a British citizen running a business of clothing, manufacturing and knitting of fabrics under the style of K & B Hosiery Company Coventry U.K. During his visit to India between 12th and 23rd March, 1994, the complainant was approached by Accused 1 to 3, including Petitioner 2 herein, that a company called M/s. Goodwill Foods Private Limited Petitioner No.1 herein (of which they were Directors), was in need of money and that the complainant would be given an attractive rate of interest if he could lend the company some money. The complainant CRL. M.C.489 of 2005 Page 2 of 4 learnt that his uncle Shri Kewal Singh Sandhu was a 50 percent shareholder in the said company and also a business associates of accused 1 to 3. Based on this assurance, the complainant made available to the accused a sum of Rs.50 lakhs on 8th December 1994 by way of a loan for a period of two years. At the expiry of the period of two years the complainant demanded repayment of the loan. The money was not returned but the accused suggested that the loan could be converted into shares in the company. Acting on this assurance and the assurance that the complainant would be made a director of the company, the complainant agreed to the proposal. Later in January 1997 when the complainant got apprehensive about the fate of his money, he got evasive replies from the accused. In June 1999 on visiting India and checking the records of the company, the complainant was shocked to learn that he was neither made a director of the company nor was there any entry regarding the investment made by him in its shares. Thereafter the present complaint was filed. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Ramesh Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioners, that the entire complaint is malafide and instigated by Shri Kewal Singh Sandhu, the uncle of the complainant against whom the petitioners here have already filed a case for cheating. He submits that there is nothing in the complaint that can answer the description of the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. Since the complaint itself is malafide, it should be quashed by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC. He places reliance on the judgments in Anil Ritolla v. State of Bihar 2007 V AD (Cr.) (SC) 18; Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) III AD (Cri) (SC) 18; Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC 259; K.Jayaram CRL. M.C.489 of 2005 Page 3 of 4 v. State 134 (2006) DLT 390 and K.Parshad Avasthi v. Dinesh Dhanda (1988-91 C.C.Cases 649 (Supp.) 4. It was further submitted that the summoning order is cryptic and does not give the reasons for summoning the accused and therefore should be quashed. 5. After perusing the complaint and examining the pre-summoning evidence recorded in the form of depositions of the complainant‟s witnesses, the learned MM passed the following order: “I have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record. From the material on record, I am of the view that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons u/s. 420 IPC and 120-B IPC. Accordingly, the accused is summoned on P.F. Put up on 7.08.2001.” 6. On perusing the complaint as well as the pre-summoning evidence recorded by the learned MM, this Court is of the view that there was sufficient material on record for the learned MM to pass an order of summoning the Petitioners under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The material on record does disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners for the commission of the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. The points raised by the petitioners are at best triable issues which can be determined only after evidence is led at the trial. There is nothing perverse in the said summoning order which calls for any interference by this Court. 7. No ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings. The CRL. M.C.489 of 2005 Page 4 of 4 prayer for exemption from personal appearance should be made by the accused before the trial court which would deal with such application in accordance with law. 8. There is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed as such with no order as to costs. The pending application is also stands dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J FEBRUARY 04, 2008 dn