Criminal Misc.-M No.34258 of 2011 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Ravi Shekhar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is an accused of offences under Sections 420, 422, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon. He seeks quashing of the said FIR on the ground that this will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court by the complainant. As per the petitioner, this case is a typical example as to how the influential persons by misusing their powers and law enforcing agencies, can pressurise their opponents to settle scores and force them to forgo their legal or valuable rights. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner is a Director of Beverly Towers Pvt.Ltd. Company registered under Criminal Misc.-M No.34258 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : Indian Companies Act, having its office at 1 & 2, Technopolice Sector 54, Gold Course Road, Gurgaon. The complainant-company had approached the petitioner through one Ravinder Yadav, who is a property dealer, and is also arrayed as an accused alongwith the petitioner, for selling their stakes in a multi storied residential group housing project. The complainant-company statedly had entered into a collaboration agreement dated 9.1.2007 with the owners of land measuring 88 Kanals 02 Marlas, situated in revenue estate of village Ulhawas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for developing residential multi- storied group housing project. The power of attorney executed by the land owners, letter of intent and the licence issued by the Town and Country Planning Department were statedly shown to the petitioner. The complainant was to develop this land as multi-storied residential group housing project and all necessary paper formalities were also to be completed by them as well as to arrange finance for the project. All the costs and obligations were to be born by the complainant- company. As per the collaboration agreement, the complainant had 61% share in the project, whereas the land owners were to have 39% share. The complainant-company, being a developer, was to obtain all necessary approvals, NOCs etc. within 120 days of notification of the said land and was to complete construction work within 36 months thereafter. The project was statedly running late and the land owners were still agreeable to honour the collaboration agreement. The petitioner and his company agreed to enter into a contract with the complainant for purchasing their shares in the project and handed over initial amount of Rs.50 lacs to the complainant-company by way of a demand draft dated 11.1.2010. On 10.2.2010, terms of Criminal Misc.-M No.34258 of 2011 (O&M) : 3 : understanding between the petitioner and the complainant were finalised and were duly signed by the representatives of both the parties. Final MOU was to be executed within 3 days and at the time of execution of the MOU, the petitioner company was required to pay a sum of ` 4.5 crores to the complainant-company. The complainant- company had assured the petitioner that they will send a draft MOU to the petitioner stipulating terms and conditions of the final agreement/MOU. As per the petitioner, no such draft was ever received despite persistent requests made by the petitioner's company. It is stated that the complainant kept on delaying the matter, but had encashed the demand draft of ` 50.00 lacs, which was handed over to the complainant at the time of executing MOU. The petitioner had also got prepared a demand draft of `4.5 crores on 24.2.2010 in favour of the complainant company. This draft was handed over to Ravinder Yadav for showing it to the complainant- company, so that it could act to complete the execution of MOU and to expedite the same. It is stated that despite numerous requests by the petitioner and Ravinder Yadav, no steps were taken by the complainant to execute MOU as per the understanding dated 10.2.2010. Apprehending some foul play, the petitioner had gone to verify the facts and found that land owners were not ready to honour the collaboration agreement as the complainant-company had failed to fulfill their obligation as per the agreement. Realising that there has been misrepresentation by the complainant-company resulting in his parting with substantial payment to them, the petitioner asked Criminal Misc.-M No.34258 of 2011 (O&M) : 4 : Ravinder Yadav to return the demand draft of ` 4.5 crores. As per the petitioner, Ravinder Yadav told the petitioner that he had misplaced the demand draft somewhere and in that regard had lodged an FIR on 16.3.2010 with Police Station Sadar Gurgaon. In this background, the petitioner issued instructions to his bank to stop payment of the demand draft of ` 4.5 crores. Even Ravinder Yadav also informed the petitioner that he apprehended that the demand draft was inadvertently left at the office of complainant-company during one of their visit to the office, for which he has sent a legal notice to the company to return the same. The complainant-company had statedly denied this fact, but ultimately presented this demand draft for encashment, which, however, could not be encashment because of the instructions, which the petitioner had left with the Bank. On this basis, the complainant had filed a complaint with the police leading to registration of the present FIR. The case set up by the petitioner, thus, is that it is a pure and simple case of civil liability, for which the petitioner has unnecessarily been fastened with the criminal prosecution, which would lead to abuse of the process of the court. There would be an apparent major dispute of facts involved in this case. What was the nature of understanding, whether this amount was to be paid after the execution of MOU, whether the petitioner had in fact handed over this draft for a huge amount of ` 4.5 crores to a property dealer, who states to have negligently misplaced the same etc. are all facts required to be established. Apparently, it may sound a bit unbelievable that a draft of this huge amount was given for the Criminal Misc.-M No.34258 of 2011 (O&M) : 5 : purpose of showing only. This draft was misplaced which would sound farfetched. The draft was not for a small amount, which, Ravinder Yadav property dealer could easily misplace. It may be that the demand draft was handed over to complainant-company and now it is being made out that it is misplaced to get out of the liability. The instructions to stop payment have also been issued. All these facts are to be established before the court on the basis of material and evidence. Investigation is still in progress. What is actually the true state of affairs would reveal after investigation. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to scuttle the investigation at the very beginning. It is a case of understanding and agreement where two parties have agreed to do something. In case the petitioner thinks that he is not liable to honour this agreement, he has to seek his civil remedy. The action has been taken against him for stopping the payment for which he had agreed and had got demand draft also prepared in the name of the complainant. In view of the facts situation in this case, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 16, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE