Delhi High Court
Arun Bhardwaj vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 20 April, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 20th April, 2018
+ BAIL APPLN. 743/2018
ARUN BHARDWAJ ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Ajay Burman, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Kunal
Malhotra and Mr. Atul Sahi,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, APP
for the State with SI Ashok
Ahlawat, PS Vikaspuri.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vivek
Sharma and Mr. Anshul Garg,
Advocates for complainants.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case FIR No.
600/2016 under Sections 420/406/120B IPC registered at PS Vikas Puri,
Delhi on the complaint of Kuldeep Singh.
2. Allegations in the above noted FIR on the complaint of Kuldeep
Singh are that he registered himself with Franchise India Pvt. Ltd. (in short
'FIPL') to find out a business/investment opportunity where he was
introduced to alleged M/s. Sera Cue Labs Pvt. Ltd. (in short 'Sera Cue') and
its pathology lab business who had given an advertisement in "The
Franchise World Magazine-June 2015 Edition" prepared by Franchise India
on behalf of Sera Cue. The complainant was promised by Sera Cue to set up
a complete pathology lab with fully automatic, non-touch technology
machines worth ₹1.25 to ₹1.50 crores with 10-12 qualified employees
wherein all the lab management, administration, operations, expenses and
advertisement was to be taken care by Sera Cue through its Directors/
officials. In return the complainant was asked to make one time investment
of ₹45-55 lakhs. On the aforesaid promise, complainant entered into a
Franchisee Agreement with Sera Cue on 15th October, 2015 at Vikas Puri
and made a payment of ₹40 lakhs between 15th October, 2015 to 1st
December, 2015 vide various cheqeus. He further invested ₹10-12 lakhs in
lab infrastructure and took the lab premises on rent for a monthly rent of
₹45,000/-. Complainant's lab was inaugurated on 17th January, 2016 at S-
371, Ground Floor, Uppal Southend, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurugram
after the premises was duly approved by the company Director/officials of
Sera Cue. However, in the laboratory only two staff members were posted
and with very basic equipments worth ₹2-3 lakhs approximately which were
taken on rent from one M/s Kuber Inc. The accused persons also did not
pay for the staff salary, electricity and telephone bills, amount due to the
vendors and also stopped paying the monthly amount due towards the
complainant after May, 2016. Sera Cue also did not deposit its taxes and
TDS deducted from its staff and franchisee payments with the Income tax
department. While the present complaint was pending, two more
complainants Surender Singh and Ashish Garg also filed the complaints.
Thus they were also joined as victims in the above noted FIR.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that though the
name of the petitioner has been mentioned, however, on a bare perusal of the
FIR there is no allegation that he either induced or promised and was not
even the person responsible for carrying out the Franchisee Agreement. The
petitioner was introduced as an Additional Director by virtue of his
investment in the company Sera Cue for which a Memorandum of
Understanding dated 16th March, 2015 was entered into between Ms. Ritu
Sahi, Arvinder Singh and Ms. Gurpreet Kaur who were the Directors of the
company Sera Cue Pvt. Ltd. The MOU dated 16th March, 2015 notices that
the petitioner was investing a sum of ₹40 lakhs as unsecured loan and the
Directors would transfer shares in the name of the petitioner. He further
states that due to the illegal activities of the erstwhile Directors of Sera Cue,
the petitioner was also constrained to file a complaint to the SHO, PS
Sector-53, Gurugram, Haryana and sought registration of FIR against them.
He further states that when the petitioner was made a Director on 31st
December, 2015 he was not even present at the Board Meeting and his role,
if any, in the company Sera Cue was limited to strategic guidance towards
growth of the company. The petitioner is not a signatory to the Franchisee
Agreement with the complainant and that the petitioner was not even the
signatory of the bank account of the company maintained with State Bank of
Patiala at Chandigarh and was only a joint signatory of companies bank
account with ICICI Bank at Gurugram along with two other Directors and
that account could be operated by the signatures of any two Directors.
Further the complainant has already received a sum of ₹46 lakhs from the
company officials, thus the petitioner cannot be coerced into parting money.
4. Learned APP for State duly assisted by learned Senior Counsel for the
complainants submits that the petitioner was not merely an investor in the
company Sera Cue but played an important role. Relevant Board
Resolutions were signed by him and important decisions were also taken by
him. Besides the complainant Kuldeep Singh, two other victims were
cheated by him in similar fashion. Complaints of cheating have been
alleged against petitioner, and in this regard number of complaints have
been lodged against the petitioner at New Delhi, Jallandhar, Jaipur, Jammu,
Neemrana, Kanpur and Gurgaon with similar kind of allegations. Petitioner
is 25% shareholder in the company Sera Cue and he had an active
involvement in the fraud relating to the franchisee business. He was the
sales and marketing head of the company and also the Chairman of the
Board of Directors. He signed various company documents, Board
Resolutions, cheques and one agreement with the FIPL dated 29th
December, 2015 in his official capacity. It is also submitted that two of the
documents filed by the petitioner in Crl. M.C. No. 1461/2017 were forged
and thus Sections 468/471 IPC have also been added to the FIR.
5. Learned APP for State has taken this Court to the main Franchisee
Agreement between the complainant and the petitioner and also placed on
record documents which would show that the franchisee deed was finalized
by the petitioner. Further copy of minutes of meeting of the Board of
Directors of Sera Cue dated 22nd December, 2015 has also been placed on
record as per which the petitioner was elected as Chairman of all the Boards
and General Body meetings of the company.
6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was made a
Director without his consent is also belied by copy of his consent letter to
become Director of the company.
7. As noted above even if the complainant Kuldeep Singh had been
made part payments by the other accused besides the complainant Kuldeep
Singh the two other victims Surender Singh and Ashish Garg have also been
joined. Even if the petitioner had not individually made assurances which
were extended through staff/employees of the company Sera Que, it is clear
from the material placed on record that the petitioner was the Chairman and
Managing Director and responsible for creating all the strategies and taking
vital decisions. Even the Franchisee Agreement between Kuldeep Singh and
Sera Cue has been signed by the petitioner. As noted above in the status
report besides the present FIR, similar FIRs have already been lodged
against the petitioner in various other jurisdictions. Thus this Court finds no
ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
APRIL 20, 2018
'vn'
