Gireesh Sanghi vs N.D.M.C. & Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 3216 Del

$~14 & 15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    CRL.M.C. 2581/2007 and CRL.M.A.6338/2008

     GIREESH SANGHI               ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr.Anip Sachthey with Mr.Mohit
                              Paul, Ms.Sahgun Matta and
                              Mr.Sherin Daniel, Advocates
                 versus

     N.D.M.C. & ORS.              ..... Respondents
                        Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Advocate for R-1
                        Mr.K.C.Jain, Advocate for R-3.

+    CRL.M.C. 2582/2007 and CRL.M.A.6336/2008

     SANGHI GROUP OF INDUSTRIES     ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr.Anip Sachthey with Mr.Mohit
                           Paul, Ms.Sahgun Matta and
                           Mr.Sherin Daniel, Advocates

                 versus

     N.D.M.C. &ORS.             ..... Respondents
                        Through: Ms.Madhu Tewatia, Advocate for R-1.
                        Mr.K.C.Jain, Advocate for R-3.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
          ORDER

% 12.07.2010

1. I have examined the affidavit filed by the NDMC. In the affidavit it is

stated that no company by the name of M/s Sanghi Group of Companies is

in occupation of the property No.30, Todar Mal Road, New Delhi. It is

further stated that from the neighbours no information regarding the whereabouts of the company could be ascertained. In paragraph 3 of the

affidavit it is stated that the Assistant Engineer and the Junior Engineer had

carried out inspection of the suit property on 24.10.2005 and the same was

found to be in occupation and use of a firm M/s. Sanghi Group of

Industries. Accordingly, M/s. Sanghi Group of Industries was made accused

No.1 to the complaint and Mr.Gireesh Sanghi, Director of M/s. Sanghi

Group of Industries was made accused No.2.

2. M/s. Sanghi Group of Industries is not an identity or a person

recognized by law. A premises can be in occupation of a natural person or a

juristic person and prosecution can be against a natural person or a juristic

person. Similarly, Mr.Gireesh Sanghi is being prosecuted as a Director of

M/s Sanghi Group of Industries which is neither a company nor a firm and

no person can be a director of a non-existing company.

3. Before filing the prosecution the respondent should have ascertained

the details of the company, if any, which was operating or functioning from

the property in question. It is also noticed that Mr.Gireesh Sanghi has

placed on record his resignation letter from the Board of M/s. Sanghi

Industries Limited dated 19.2.2004 and from another company M/s. Sanghi

Polyester Limited on 2.2.2004. However, neither of the two companies are

being prosecuted.

4. In these circumstances, the summoning order dated 24.4.2006

summoning the accused No.1 and 2 are set aside. It is clarified that it will

be open to the respondent NDMC, if permitted and allowed under law, to

file a fresh complaint before the learned trial court or file better particulars

before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and request for summoning of

the persons, if any, who have committed the offence.

5. With the aforesaid clarifications, the petitions are allowed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JULY 12, 2010 Sv/VKR