Arvind Aggarwal (Dr.) vs Unitech Limited & Another
1999 Latest Caselaw 1281 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 27/93 under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B IPC registered at the P.S. Malviya Nagar and pending on the file of the M.M. Delhi.

2. The petitioner and his wife are partners of M/s. Shilpi Modes and directors of M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. In the month of October, 1991, both the petitioners approached the complainant M/s. Unitech (for short 'the complainant company') and falsely represented that they were owner of 67 acres of land in village Gawal Pahari and 40 acres of land in Hyderpur, Distt. Gurgaon (Punjab) and induced the complainant to enter into an agreement to develop the said land. Thus, the petitioners fraudulently obtained a sum of more than Rs. 40 lacs from the complainant. It is alleged that the petitioners also forged certain sale deeds in respect of the aforesaid lands and thereby cheated the complainant. On 27.1.1993, a report regarding the alleged cheating was lodged at the P.S. Malviya Nagar. Investigation pursuant thereto culminated in submission of the charge sheet under Sections 406/420/468/471/120-B IPC against the petitioners.

3. The petitioners seek quashing of the criminal proceedings emanating from the impugned FIR mainly on the following grounds :-

(i) that the foundation of the FIR is the contract between the parties as memorandum of understanding which is actually a single venture partnership agreement dated 7.10.1991. This agreement has also been admitted by the complainant company in their letter dated 5.11.1991. Both these vital documents have been supressed by the investigating agency, which vitiates the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners.

(ii) that by a supplementary memorandum of understanding, the lands of Gwalpahari Village had been excluded from the original agreement and this fact had deliberately suppressed by the complainant;

(iii) that the transaction between the parties is of civil nature and does not attract criminal liability. The petitioners have already filed the Civil Suit No. 2084/95 against the complainant and the complainant company has also filed the Civil Suit No. 2497 of 1994 against the petitioners in respect of the agreement in question. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.

4. It is well settled that the power of quashing a FIR or criminal proceedings has to be sparingly exercised by the Court with due regard to the guide-lines laid down in this behalf by judicial pronouncements. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , certain categories of case have been laid down by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of the law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is alleged by the petitioners that the complainant company is a single venture partnership of M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Limited. M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. purchased 67 acres of land in village Gwalpahari and another 40 acres of land was acquired by it in village Hyderpur. Besides M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. also had agreements with the land owners for purchase of approximately 180 acres of land in village Hyderpur. In respect of the aforesaid land, M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. entered into a partnership business with the complainant company to develop the said land by both the parties for the purpose of colonisation project. It is also alleged that on 7.10.1991, the terms were reduced into writing in an agreement described as Memorandum of understanding. According to the said agreement, both the parties agreed that the expenses for development of the land which was in the ownership of M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. was to be shared between M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. the complainant company in the ratio of 55% and 45% respectively and the expenses for development of the land, which was subject matter of the agreement for the purchase was to be shared in the ratio of 65% and 35% by M/s. Shilpi Modes (Pvt.) Ltd. and the complainant company respectively. It is further alleged that the complainant company under re-structured agreement assured the payment of Rs. 10 lacs per week from middle of Nov. 1991 till January, 1992 to fulfill the minimum requirement and in terms thereof the complainant company gave two cheques of Rs. 15 lacs each, which were dishonoured by the bank.

5. It is significant to mention that the aforesaid facts have been denied by the complainant company. It is well settled that while exercising the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the Court should not enter into the arena of disputed questions of fact. It is undisputed that the parties have instituted civil suits against each other in respect of the transaction in question but the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the sole ground of pendency of civil suits. In Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others , it was held that merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit.

6. At this stage of the proceedings elaborate documentation on merits is to be avoided as I am anxious not to prejudge or prejudice the case of either side. Suffice it to say that the present case does not fall in any of the categories enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra).

7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed.