Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 : 1 : ***** Gagandeep Goel & another Vs. Radha Krishan & others Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gaurav Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** The prayer made in the present petition is for holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petitioners allege that Criminal Misc.Petition No.54821-M of 2007 was filed before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the respondents. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was supported by an affidavit averring that contents of para Nos.1 to 27 thereof were true and correct and no part of it was false and nothing had been concealed therefrom. It is contended that number of wrong averments in the affidavit as well as documents annexed with the petition were made. The petitioners were even not the Managing Directors, who claimed themselves to be so. In fact, all the wrong statements made in the petition have been detailed in the petition and are as under:- i) Vide para 1 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that the registered office of the Company is at SCF 4, Sector 22, Chandigarh. Presently, the Registered Office is at Kothi No.1119, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. A copy of the Resolution dated 18.01.2007 passed by the Board of Directors of the Company (hereinafter referred to as “the BoD”) is annexed herewith as Annexure C- Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 : 2 : 3. ii) Vide para 5 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that as desired by respondent No.4, the respondent- accused No.1 put the lock on the premises and the keys remained with both, respondent-accused No.1 and Shri Gaurav Deep Goel, respondent No.3 in the petition as there were two set of keys of the lock. iii) Vide para 11 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that the petitioners were effected by the action of the bank and respondent-accused on his behalf and on behalf of the Company filed an S.A. Before the DRT. It is stated that in the entire petition before this Hon'ble Court, the petitioners have not disclosed as to what their status is in the Company; how they were affected and what locus they had to file the S.A., before the DRT, on behalf of the Company. iv) Vide para 11 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that the respondent-accused No.1 showed his readiness and willingness to pay off all the outstanding amount/debt to the bank and in order to show his bona fide, deposited an amount of Rs.20.00 lakh with the bank. That the correct position is that the act of filing the S.A. Was by personation, clandestine and mala fide. The respondent-accused No.1 had no known source from which he could pay off a loan of Rs.3.60 crores. Even the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs was deposited by S.K.& Co.-Partner Vipin Jain, vide Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 : 3 : Demand Draft No.253029 dated 01.10.2007 issued by the Vijaya Bank, Zirakpur (Punjab). A copy of the Demand Draft is annexed herewith as Annexure C-4. Neither S.K.& Co.nor its Partner Vipin Jain has anything to do with the Company or its affairs. In nut shell, it was a criminal conspiracy hatched to grab the property of the company. v) Vide para 13 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that the respondent-accused had opened the premises with the keys that were with the respondent-accused (No.1-7). It is stated that the premises had been lying locked since 23.03.2006 and the key of the premises was with complaint No.2. This is admitted by the respondent-accused themselves in the so-called `Minutes of Meeting' dated 22.12.2006, drawn fraudulently. A copy of the said so-called Minutes is annexed herewith as Annexure C-5. All of a sudden, in the night of 03/04.10.2007, the respondent accused broke upon the locks of the premises. The respondent- accused No.1 moved the DRT by personation. Moreover, the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the DRT, annexed as Annexure P-7 with the petition, gave no authority to open the premises by all the respondent accused and their associates. The said order concerned a proposal only made by the respondent accused No.1. vi) Vide para 13 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 : 4 : that after opening the premises, daily sale were made and the sale proceeds were deposited with the State Bank of India. The fact is that after breaking open the locks and committing trespass in the night of 03/04.10.2007, the respondent-accused deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the name of sale for 04.10.2007. No other amount was deposited by the respondent-accused. vii) Vide para 15 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. were to divest the respondent-accused from smooth running of the business of the Company. The fact is that the respondent-accused had never been in possession of the premises nor they had ever run the business of the Company nor they had any such locus. viii) Vide para 22 of the petition, it has wrongly been stated that in the Memorandum of Understanding executed on 7th Sept., 2006, annexed as Annexure P- 15 with the petition, the respondent-accused, i.e. No.1 to 7, were on one hand and that they were to pay or had paid some amount. The factual position is that in the said Memorandum, respondent-accused No.1 only was on one side. ix) Vide para 27 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated that running business of the Company had been attached. The fact is that the business of the Company had got closed on 23.03.2006. The respondent Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 : 5 : accused with their associates committed trespass in the night of 03/04.10.2007. On coming to know, a complaint dated 03.10.2007 was lodged with the local police by the complainant No.2. A copy of the complaint made is annexed as Annexure C-6. The police closed the premises in the night itself. This is apparent from the copy of the DDR No.34 dated 04.10.2007 annexed as Annexure P-10 with the petition. However, the respondent-accused opened the premises next date, i.e. On 04.10.2007, again and the police closed the same, again. The respondent accused have deliberately withheld information regarding the events which actually took place. x) Vide Ground at (viii) of para 27 of the petition, it has wrongly been stated that the Company had been formed by the respondent-accused, i.e. 1 to 7 and the respondent No.2 to 4 in the petition and that the keys were with both the parties. It is stated that except respondent-accused No.1, no other respondent- accused was concerned with the formation of the Company. The respondent accused No.1 had vacated office as Director on 25.03.2006. It is further stated that none of the respondent-accused was ever associated with the business of the company nor the keys were with them.” It is accordingly pleaded that this court should hold an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and if satisfied may make a Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 : 6 : complaint in writing or send it to a Magistrate of first Class having jurisdiction. As per the pleadings, the false averments in the petition have been made in a document prepared outside the Court though committed in relations to the proceedings before this court. This averment is made in respect of a document produced and given in evidence in the proceedings in this court. No offence appears to have been committed in respect of documents already produced in this court. In this view of the matter, the petitioners would be at liberty to file an appropriate complaint before the Magistrate having a competent jurisdiction in this regard, which shall deal with the same in accordance with law. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. November 20, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE