Delhi High Court
Peatree Enterprises P.Ltd. vs State & Ors. on 21 February, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 535/2011 & Crl.M.A. No.2059/2011
Decided on 21.02.2011
IN THE MATTER OF :
PEATREE ENTERPRISES P.LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Gurbaksh Singh, Adv.
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. M.N. Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM
7* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner company under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying inter alia for quashing of the orders dated
12.11.2010 passed by the learned ASJ in Criminal Revision Petition
No.39/2010 and the order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned ACMM,
whereby the complaint case filed by the petitioner company against the
respondents was dismissed on the ground that the dispute between the
parties was purely civil in nature and that no further police investigation was
required. It was further observed by the learned ASJ that no offence was
disclosed from the facts set out in the complaint as well as from a perusal of
the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the
petitioner/complainant.
2. In the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ considered the order
dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned ACMM, and after examining the facts
of the case on the basis of the trial and upon hearing arguments of the
counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the revision petition with the
observation that the case was purely civil in nature and in case the petitioner
company had any grievance against the respondents, the remedy was
available to it under the civil law for seeking recovery of the amount.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as per the
petitioner/complainant, are that in August, 2002, respondents No. 3 & 4
visited the office of the petitioner company and both the parties entered into
a collaboration to develop a land owned by the respondents. As per the
petitioner, respondents No.3 & 4 projected to the petitioner company that
the land in question was free from all kinds of disputes and encumbrances,
and that if the petitioner company would invest funds in the project, it would
receive huge profits later. As a result, a Memorandum of Understanding
dated 6.8.2002 was executed between the parties. At the time of signing
the MOU, the petitioner company paid a sum of `11.00 lacs to the
respondents towards part financial investment in the aforesaid project.
However, thereafter when the petitioner company got the papers of the said
land verified, it came to know that a major part of the land in question was
either under litigation or there were some encumbrances in respect of the
said land. Immediately thereupon, the petitioner company approached
respondents No.3 & 4 for cancellation of the MOU. This was followed by
execution of a document on 13.8.2002 between the petitioner company and
respondents No.2 & 3, cancelling the earlier MOU dated 6.8.2002.
4. In the aforesaid agreement, it was specifically recorded that all
the cheques including the cheque of `28.00 crores given by the petitioner
company in pursuance to the earlier MOU dated 6.8.2020, would be returned
and stand cancelled. After a gap of over three years, the petitioner
company filed the aforesaid complaint under Sections 406/420/120B IPC
read with Section 200 Cr.P.C., based on its claim that the
respondents/accused had not refunded `11.00 lacs to it, and praying inter
alia for registration of FIR against the respondents and for taking
appropriate steps against them.
5. Vide order dated 15.7.2005, the application of the petitioner/
complainant filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions for
registration of FIR was declined and the petitioner/complainant was directed
to lead evidence in its favour under Section 200 Cr.P.C. After completion of
the entire evidence of the complainant, the matter was listed for arguments.
Learned ACMM heard the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner
company and arrived at the conclusion that the complaint case was filed by
the petitioner company only to pressurize the accused persons to enable
recovery of the amount of `11.00 lacs. The aforesaid complaint was
dismissed on 19.7.2010 with the observations that there was no ground
made out to summon the alleged accused persons in the said case and no
further investigation was required.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner company
preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court, which has also been
dismissed vide order dated 12.11.2010, while upholding the order of the
learned ACMM on the ground that there is no illegality, impropriety and
incorrectness therein.
7. Counsel for the petitioner company states that at the time of
considering the complaint, the court is not required to look into the
subsequent events and ought to confine itself only to the averments made in
the complaint, for taking appropriate action against the accused.
Pertinently, the subsequent event being referred to by the learned counsel
for the petitioner company is the cancellation of the MOU. It is relevant to
note that the said cancellation of MOU finds mention in the complaint itself
at paras 7 & 8 thereof. Furthermore, it is not disputed that at the time of
cancellation of the aforesaid MOU on 06.08.2002, it was agreed that the post
dated cheques worth `28.00 crores, which were issued by the petitioner
company to the respondents, would be returned and would stand cancelled.
Nothing precluded the petitioner company from making the refund of the
sum of `11.00 lacs an additional condition for cancellation of the agreement.
However, for reasons best known to the petitioner company, no such steps
were taken by it at the relevant time. Instead, after the expiry of about
three years, the petitioner company chose to file the aforesaid complaint in
May 2005, which was dismissed by the learned ACMM.
8. This Court is inclined to agree with the observation of the
learned ASJ that once the MOU was cancelled and the cheques worth `28.00
crores were returned to the petitioner company, there was no question of
returning the cheques worth Rs.11 lacs. It was clearly a transaction
between two companies and not between a company and an individual, who
claimed that he had invested in the company and had been cheated. Both
parties were in an equal bargaining position. Similar arguments have been
addressed before this Court, as had been addressed before the learned ASJ,
which are turned down as being devoid of merits. This Court has perused
the order dated 12.11.2010 passed by the learned ASJ as also the order
dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned ACMM, and does not find any
illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice therein for interference.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with the pending
application.
9. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner company states that the
petitioner company be given liberty to seek its remedies against the
respondent on the civil side. This liberty has already been granted to the
petitioner company in the impugned order. In case, a civil remedy is
available to the petitioner company, it may seek the same in accordance
with law.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 21, 2011 JUDGE
sk
