Jai Bhagwan And Others vs State
2001 Latest Caselaw 1041 Del

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners 1 to 5 are seeking quashing of FIR Nos. 387/97, 565/97, 16/98, 498/98, 50/98 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC, P.S. Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Delhi registered against them.

2. It is alleged that about 400 employees working in the DCM received compensation, on its closure in March, 1989. Petitioner No. 1 Jai Bhagwan Singh, representing himself as an agent induced the employees to deposit amounts in the funds of the DCM with he promise that each depositor shall receive payment at fixed intervals along with interest. On the basis of these inducements workers deposited their hard earned money. It is alleged that in August 1996 petitioners floated six finance companies and diverted deposits of the investors in the said companies without their knowledge or consent cheques issued to the depositors were dishonoured. On the complaint lodged by the depositors, several criminal cases were registered against the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 surrendered and was bailed out on 22.9.1997. Petitioners 3 and 5 were stated to be in Jail on the date of filing of the petition. Depositors formed the action committee to make efforts to get back their deposits. Subsequently, this association appears to have been registered as "Delhi Naitik Nagrik Parishad (Regd.)". Affidavits of some of its members have also been filed stating that they have authorised petitioners 6 and 7 to enter into compromise on their behalf. Initially petitioners 6 and 7 filed a writ (Crl.W.No. 754/97) for transfer of investigations to CBI. The same was not pressed because of the compromise. It is alleged that on 4.3.1998 the accused No. 1, Jai Bhagwan entered into an agreement, with the said representatives. As per the compromise accused persons agreed to pay 50% of the amount of the depositors to them, within three months, by selling their properties and balance 50% after the interval of eight months in three Installments. On the basis of this compromise accused persons, and investors' representatives, filed this joint petition seeking quashing of the above noted five FIRs. Prayer reads:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to record the compromise between the petitioners no. 1 to 5, the accused persons and petitioners no. 6 & 7 being authorised agents/persons on behalf of the Chaudhary Committee and further be pleased to quash the pending FIRs No. 387/97, 565/97, 16/98, 49/98, 50/98 under Section 406/420/120B IPC PS Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi and further be pleased to issue appropriate orders and directions to the in charge PS, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, to release original documents in respect of the properties situated at Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and at Jaipur, to enable the petitioners to negotiate and to sell these properties for repayment of deposits of the depositors and investors or may pass any other orders or directions as may deem fit and proper."

3. Representatives of the depositors (petitioners 6 and 7) also represented that a firm arrangement was arrived at for repayment to the depositors by selling properties of the petitioners 1 to 5 and that documents pertaining to the properties at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and at Jaipur as well as share scripts were with the police. As per the agreement accused persons were to seek permission to dispose of their assets to facilitate repayment to the depositors.

4. Report from the Investigating Officer was called. As per the report, there were about 271 complainants/investors, who had deposited Rs. 2,15,59,471/- with the accused persons. Looking into the interest and claims of the depositors, prayer of the accused persons (petitioners 1 to 5) to quash the proceedings against them was kept pending awaiting implementation of the agreement arrived at between them. It was ordered that the petitioners shall not dispose of any of their assets without leave of the Court. However, further proceedings arising out of the above FIRs were stayed. The order dated 30th October, 1998 reads:-

"Having regard to the aforenoted facts I am of the view that it may not be in the interest of the depositors to quash the prosecution proceedings pending against petitioners No. 1 to 5 at this stage itself. It will be in their interest if the matter is kept pending to await the implementation of the terms of settlement arrived at in terms of the settlement arrived at in terms of the deed of settlement dated 4 March 1998.

It is submitted by Mr. Bisaria, learned counsel for the petitioners that the terms of settlement can be complied with only if petitioners No. 1 to 5 are permitted to dispose of their assets. It is pointed out that the original documents pertaining to the immovable properties and the share scrips for the shares of the said petitioners are in the possession of the I.O. Mr. Anil Soni, learned counsel for the State submits, on instructions from the I.O., who is present in Court, that the original documents pertaining that the properties at Rohini, Kasturba Gandhi Marg Delhi and at Jaipur are with the I.O. and insofar as the share scrips are concerned, they are with the I.O. as per the Seizure memo. It has been agreed between the parties that petitioners No. 1 to 5 will be free to dispose of their assets to facilitate repayment of various deposits. It has been further agreed that when the said petitioners finalise a deal for disposal of any of the assets, they will move appropriate application before this Court for permission to dispose of the properties and release of original documents by the I.O. Meanwhile Xerox copies of documents pertaining to immovable properties may be given to the said petitioners by the I.O.

It is clarified that no asset shall be disposed of by petitioners No. 1 to 5 without the leave of the court.

List the matter on 25th January, 1999 for further directions.

Till the next date further proceedings arising out of the aforenoted FIRs shall remain stayed.

A copy of this order be given dusty to learned counsel for the petitioners and the State."

5. As per the agreement, documents pertaining to the properties at Rohini, K.G. Marg and Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the premises in question") were to remain with the Investigating Officer and petitioners were given Xerox copies. The petitioners were directed to move appropriate applications whenever they desired to dispose of any of their assets. After the aforesaid orders, accused persons have moved the following applications:-

(i) Crl.M. No. 524/99 praying for delivery of keys of the said premises from the I.O./District Crime Cell; for permission to go out of Delhi to negotiate for sale of the property at Jaipur, and for copies of documents. Vide orders dated 23.3.1999, the prayer for delivery of keys was not accepted. However, I.O. was directed to be present at the prefixed time so as to enable inspection of properties in question.

(ii) Crl.M. No. 3116/99 stating that the accused persons have agreed to sell the immovable property at Jaipur for Rs. 2,10,000/- to Alok Gupta on 8.4.1999. This application was disposed of vide orders dated 7.5.1999. It was directed that any of the 271 complainants may get the property at Jaipur evaluated and file objections against the proposed sale before the Court. However, the Stay granted vide orders dated 30th October, 1998 was ordered to be withdrawn.

(iii) Crl.M. No. 4993/99 on 13th July, 1999 it was ordered that the petitioners be not arrested during the pendency of their petition.

(iv) Crl.M. No. 10759/99 on 29th November, 1999 accused persons moved another application praying permission for selling their properties at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and at Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi for Rs. 4/- lacs and Rs. 8/- lacs respectively. Notice of the application was issued for 1st November, 1999. As prayed by petitioner No. 6, he was permitted to deposit Rs. 3/- lacs with the Registrar of this Court.

(v) Crl.M. No. 3241/2000 application by accused persons praying for stay of the auction of properties No. UB-49, Antriksh Bhawan, 22 K.G. Marg, New Delhi and 16/67-68 Faiz Road, Delhi on 7th August, 2000, in execution of the decree passed by the Civil Court.

It was also noticed that the accused persons, in contravention of the orders of this Court, were trying to dispose of these properties and had deposited Rs. 3/- lacs with the Registrar of this Court. Notice on this application was issued on 4th August, 2000 and it was specifically ordered: "the question of propriety of disposing of the properties shall be decided on the next date of hearing".

(vi) Crl.M. No. 2187/2000 accused persons moved another application dated 15th May, 2000 praying for appropriate direction to the Investigating Officer for delivery of the original title deeds of the said properties purported to have been sold by them for Rs. 9/- lacs. Notice of this application was issued for 10th August, 2000. In this application it was prayed:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to direct the Investigating Officer to hand over the keys of the properties No. UB-49 Antriksh Bhawan, 22, K.G. Marg, New Delhi, and 16/67-68, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, along with original title deeds lying with the Investigating Officer and direct the Registrar of this Hon'ble Court to accept Rs. 9 lakh received by the petitioners towards the entire sale consideration, or may pass any other order or directions as may deem fit and proper."

6. Applications of the petitioners seeking permission to sell their properties situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi for Rs. 4/- lacs and Rs. 8/- lacs respectively are pending consideration. Admittedly, both the properties are commercial properties which are sought to be sold for Rs. 12/- lacs only. It may be re-called that there are 271 depositors. Accused persons (petitioners 1 to 5) were to pay more than Rs. 2/- crores to them in 1998. As per the agreement dated 4th March, 1998, accused persons undertook to pay to the depositors 50% of the said amount to them within three months and balance 50% of the said amount to them within three months and balance 50% after an interval of eight months. It was on this undertaking, looking into the interest of the depositors, further proceedings on the above noted five FIRs against the accused persons were stayed. Nothing has been paid to the investors during the last three years. Petitioners are now seeking to dispose of the said two commercial properties only for Rs. 12/- lacs, which on the face of it appears to be ridiculously low and I am not inclined to accept the same.

7. In the petition, it was alleged that petitioner No. 1 was arrested and was released on bail, petitioners 3 and 5 were said to be in Jail on the date of filing of the petition. There is nothing on record to indicate as to whether petitioners 2 and 4 participated in the investigation or not. On 13th July, 1999, I.O. was directed not to arrest petitioners till the next date of hearing. The said order is still continuing. It is needless to observe that as per the settled law inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to interfere with the proceedings, at the initial stage if Court finds that there is an abuse of the process of law or that such interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice only in exceptional and extra-ordinary cases. In this case accused persons have succeeded in getting the trial of criminal cases against them delayed by about three years under the garb of this compromise.

8. For the foregoing reasons, applications of the petitioners seeking permission to dispose of the properties at Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi are hereby rejected with Rs. 10,000/- as costs. All interim orders staying proceeding against them arising out of the above-mentioned FIRs and arrest of the petitioners are revoked.

9. It is further ordered that properties seized during investigations as well as the amount deposited by petitioner No. 6 in the name of the Registrar of this Court shall remain attached pending adjudication of the rights of the depositors by the court of competent jurisdiction. The amount deposited in this Court shall be kept in two years fixed deposit till further orders.

Crl. Ms. 3327/2000, 3339/2000, 3340/2000 and 3342/2000.

10. By these applications, petitioners are seeking permission to execute the decree passed by the Addl. District Judge against he accused persons (petitioners 1 to 5) by auctioning their properties. As noticed above, properties of the accused persons were seized during investigations in the above noted five FIRs. The rights of the depositors/complainants have yet not been adjudicated. Prosecution against the accused persons is still pending. In view of the same, these properties should remain attached pending adjudication of the rights of fall the depositors/complainants by the court of competent jurisdiction. These applications also stand disposed of.

Crl. M. No. 1720/2000

11. Application for being imp leaded as a party to the petition. Dismissed as infructuous.