Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.7.2010 Rajeev Duggal and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr.D.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the impugned order dated 10.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) and FIR No. 12 dated 13.1.2005 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code , registered at Police Station Civil Lines Karnal District Karnal. Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The contents of the FIR (Annexure P-1) read as under:- “I Krishan Kumar son of Shri Chandgi Ram is resident of 74 Ranjit Inclave, Kunjpura Road, Karnal. I am B.A.pass unemployed person. I had invested an huge amount in Cossets Company through its store, which is established in Sector 13, Karnal and the M.D. Of company Puneet Nanda and Director Rajeev Duggal had promised me that I will surely obtain benefit by investing the money in their company, but I even did not received back my original investment. The fraud had been committed with me. The Cossets company by working through director marketing had committed fraud of crores of rupees. Number of cases for different offences had already lodged against M.D. Puneet Nanda and Rajeev Duggal by the R.B.I. Through its Chandigarh branch. This company just to fulfil their aim of fraud had very smartly embroidered their way, they had opened the branches of their offices and departmental stores in Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and other districts. Through which they used to allure the public, and for their own benefit they used to inspire the public to invest money. For this they had maintain full staff, employee and used to organize meetings and Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 3 conferences in different-different places in most of the cities and through speeches they used to allure the general public and get them prepared to invest the money in their company. I had attended the meeting, which was organized in the Heena Banquet Hall, Karnal and was addressed by the owner of company Puneet Nanda and Rajeev Duggal. They said that they are opening almost 40 departmental stores in all over country. The material in stores belongs to the reputed companies and which you used to purchase as usually since long, the same could be purchased from our company, the same will be available with us must cheaper than the market value and also you could do your own business by investing money in our company. They said that you could get the benefit of our store by making the customers. We had started a scheme, which called as SSC. Under this scheme you have to invest rupee one lac and twenty thousand only, we will refund you rupees five thousand per month and you will receive this money regularly and continuously forever and you can invest more money by enlarging the business undedr this scheme, which have no limit. You will earn maximum by investing maximum investment. If you will aprise about this scheme to other persons and if Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 4 they being allured and invest their money, then you will also get the extra bonus apart from the fixed income. Both the owners of the company just to prove their scheme correct said that the transaction which is going on is valid as the same is going on after the approval of Government, the incomer which will be given to you, some of its share used to go to the Income Tax Department. They had also said that their cossets company is much better than the already existing companies like M-Way, Japan Life etc. and by joining with it, could earn lacs and crores of rupees, this is totally safe, and is recommended from the Government of India. This will make you wealthier. You will earn crores of rupees. Numbers of customers have earn lacs and crores by joining our company, anybody could earn. I after doing meeting with Puneet Nanda and Rajiv Duggal, by falling in their web with the help of my two companions, we had invested a huge amount of Rs.5,25,000/- (Rs. Five lacs twenty five thousand) under the name of R.K.Associates, vide I.D. Number was 138915 and on this account I had received four cheques with the difference of 3-3 months, the total amounts comes to Rs.90,000/-. But now still, since last one year I Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 5 had not received any money. Still my rupees four lacs twenty five thousand stands balance towards the company and the same is liable to be refunded me back as per the assurance given to me, like me the below mentioned persons also came into the web, had spent different-different investment in the company, the money which have been refunded back to them, the details of that are as under: as follows: Satish Kumar I.D. No. 127482, Satbir Singh I.D.No. 157532, Malkhan 127983 Naresh Thapa 123180, Sanjiv Khokhar I.D. 204845, Partap Chaudhary I.D. 204855, Aman Malik I.D. 157568, Suman I.D. 157580, Roshni Devi I.D.124877, Narender Kumar I.D. 125174, Balram I.D. 157400 above mentioned persons allured by Puneet Nanda and Rajeev Duggal and they had grabbed their crores of rupees and while delivering the speech both the owners used to say that the case which has been filed by the RBI over their company, in this case they had obtained clean chit from the RBI and the same was shown by them to the public through newspaper. The Government of India, the company have no danger from Sebi and other institutions, you can invest maximum money without any fear or hunch. Only on this assurance the numbers of peoples had invested money in the company according to their Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 6 worth. All persons could be produced at the time of the evidence.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case the offence in question was, in fact, a dispute of civil in nature. The FIR in question was, thus, liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the petitioners had cheated various persons including respondent No. 2 by floating the scheme and had misappropriated lacs of rupees. A dispute can have civil as well as criminal liability. In the present case there are serious allegations against the petitioners to the effect that they had defrauded innocent people of their money. The petitioners had floated a scheme that in case a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was invested with them, the investor would earn income of Rs.5,000/- per month. On joining the company, many people with the hope of earning more money invested their valuable savings with the company. Complainant-respondent No.2 had invested Rs.5,25,000/- with the company and in instalments, he received back Rs.90,000/- but thereafter, no amount was paid to him. Thus, respondent No.2 had been duped of his money. There are other persons, who are similarly situated as the complainant and who had invested a lot of money with the company. It is apparent that the company with a view to cheat the innocent public had floated the scheme so that people would invest their money with them and Crl.Misc.No.M- 29899 of 2009 (O&M) 7 thereafter they would misappropriate the amount invested with them. In these circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly held that the finding of the trial Court that dispute was basically civil in nature was not sustainable and the said finding had resulted in miscarriage of justice. Moreover, the complainant had got back only Rs.90,000/- out of Rs.5,25,000/- invested by him and hence, it could not be said that complainant-respondent No.2 had received back substantial amount. The fact that whether the petitioners are guilty of the alleged offence or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial. However, the petitioners could not have been discharged at the initial stage without facing the trial. Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 14 , 2010 anita