Shri Ranjiv Talwar vs The State
2003 Latest Caselaw 951 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr. P. C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.57/2003, u/Ss. 406/420/468/471/34 IPC, P.S. Civil Line, Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s.Allied Motors Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act; 97% of the shares of this company are held by the petitioner and his family members. This company was a licensed dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited, for the last several years; one Gurcharan Singh, husband of the complainant, advanced loans to the company from time to time, for which he used to take cheques as security for repayment of the loan; cheques used to be taken in his own name or in the name of his son's firm. He had invested amount of Rs.3.25 crores, with the intention to convert it into equity, enabling him to come on the Board of Directors of the company, and to participate in the management; he wanted to buy the entire shareholding of the company, but the price of the shares could not be settled, and certain disputes arose between them; parties decided to get their dispute settled through arbitration through Sh.Arun Khosla, advocate, who was known to both of them. Accordingly on 13.4.2002, Arbitration Agreement was executed between the petitioner and Gurcharan Singh (Annexure P-1). After hearing the parties, the arbitrator, made and published the award on 19.4.2002 (AnnexureP-2). Gurcharan Singh received and accepted the award; under the award, he was to make payment of Rs.11.0 crores to the company, and in lieu thereof the entire equity held by petitioner and his family members was to be transferred in his name; Rs.3.25 crores already invested by Gurcharan Singh was to be adjusted, and personal guarantees given by petitioner to the banks and non banking finance companies etc. was to be replaced. He was also required to simultaneously ensure return of all post dated cheques, receipts, promissory notes and other documents of securities issued by the petitioner, on behalf of the company, M/s.Allied Motors Limited and to replace these by executing fresh documents. Learned counsel argued that award has already been published and accepted; Gurcharan Singh instead of fulfillling his obligation, filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court, challenging the said award (OMP.No.256/2002) and obtained stay on 19.4.03. Learned counsel referring to the award argued that the amount being claimed by the complainant formed part of the total investment of Rs.3.25 crores made by her husband, Gurcharan Singh and that in a dispute of civil case, FIR is mala fide and the petitioner is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

3. Learned APP for the State argued to the contrary, submitting that on 30.1.2003 Smt. Charan jeet Kaur lodged a report alleging that the petitioner and his family members are the owners of M/s.Allied Motors Limited; they induced her to invest money in his company for purchase of cars, which could be sold on profits, representing that it was hundred per cent safe investment and return of profit was instantaneous; on her reluctance, the petitioner and his associates represented that they would initially take the amount as loan, would give interest thereon and would subsequently book cars for her; on his inducement, the complainant invested a sum of Rs.1,09,45,000/- in the company and booked 17 cars through petitioner. The payment was made through cheques, from the personal account of the complainant, the details of which are given in the FIR. Learned counsel argued that the cars were neither delivered nor the amount was refunded, despite repeated requests.

Learned APP further argued that during investigations, it was revealed that the transaction between the petitioner and Smt.Charan jeet Kaur is separate; she was not the party to the said Arbitration Agreement dated 13.4.2003; she had invested the amount of Rs.1,09,45,000/- from her personal account and from the partnership concern, after taking out her capital; that investigations revealed that these transactions are not even reflected in the computer, showing booking of the cars and that the petitioner is also involved in similar other cases i.e. : (i) FIR No.244/2002 u/Ss. 420/468/471/406/34 IPC, P.S. Roop Nagar; (ii) FIR No.585/2002 u/Ss. 406/420 IPC, P.S.Connaught Place, New Delhi; (iii) FIR No.586/2002 u/Ss. 406/420 IPC, P.S. Connaught Place; (iv) FIR No.57/2003 u/Ss. 420/468/471/406/34 IPC P.S. Civil Lines Delhi and (v) FIR No.529 u/Ss. 420/468/471/406/34 IPC, P.S.Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It is thus argued that interrogation of the petitioner is required to reach the truth and to find out where the petitioner has siphoned off the money, and material documents/evidence are still to be collected.

4.In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest that petitioner is involved in the above noted five cases. He however, submits that two cases mentioned at Serial Nos.(ii) and (iii) have already been compromised and cases mentioned at Serial Nos.(i) and (v), compromise talks are in progress. Learned counsel argued that these cases were registered because of financial difficulties through which petitioner is passing.

5.Admittedly, complainant was not the party to the said Arbitration Agreement dated 13.4.2003; that agreement was between the petitioner and Gurcharan Singh, here the amount deposited by the complainant was from her personal account and from the firm in which she is a partner, on false representation of the petitioner and others. Neither the amount has been returned nor the cars have been delivered to her. As per the allegations, petitioner has even manipulated accounts and booking of the cars is not even reflected in the computer. In the backdrop of these facts, it is not possible to say that it is merely a civil dispute and no case of custodial interrogation is made out.

6.Looking into the nature of allegation and gravity of offence and previous involvement of the petitioner, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.    Dismissed.