Delhi High Court
Gaytri Vaidyanathan vs State & Anr on 9 July, 2018
$~67
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 9th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4339/2016 and Crl.M.A.18120/2016, 6782/2017
GAYTRI VAIDYANATHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Roopansh Puhorit, Advocate
versus
STATE & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun K. Sharma, APP for the
State with Insp. Anil Yadav
Mr. Gandharv Anand, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The present petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of first information report (FIR)
No.191/2014 of Police Station Nangloi involving offences punishable
under Sections 420/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
mainly on the ground that the allegations made therein are false and
motivated.
2. The petition has been resisted both by the State (first
respondent) and also by the complainant (the second respondent)
through status report and formal reply.
3. Arguments have been heard and the record has been perused.
4. It appears that the petitioner is one of the Directors of a
company incorporated in India in the name and style of M/s. Rapid
Nutrition Private Limited (RNPL); it having been formed as a
subsidiary company of M/s. Rapid Nutrition Pty, a company
incorporated in Australia. It is alleged that the parent company of the
aforementioned company incorporated in India had issued a corporate
bank guarantee for its debts to the extent of INR 100 million. It is
stated that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, the second respondent,
M/s. Sanyog Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (SEPL) was approached on behalf
of RNPL inducing it to become its "super stockiest" in India and on
the false assurances and representation and promises that were held
out, confidence of the Managing Director of SEPL was gained
resulting in an agreement being executed on 25.07.2012 wherein
SEPL became India's "super stockiest" of the RNPL, it having been
signed on behalf of the RNPL by co-accused Vaidyanathan Nateshan,
he being the husband of the petitioner herein. In terms of the said
business transactions entered upon, SEPL made over, by cheque,
Rs.5,27,13,110/- in favour of another subsidiary company named
Rapid Nutri Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. at the instance of RNPL. The
amount, thus paid, included Rs.2 crores towards security and the
balance towards orders for health produces placed by SEPL. It is
alleged that, in spite of such payment, no products were made
available or supplied and when the matter was pursued there was a
commitment for entire refund with financial cost by 15.01.2013, the
same not having been honoured. The investigation into the FIR is
stated to have shown that out of aforementioned amount of
Rs.2,21,34,000/- was diverted by co-accused Amit Srivastava,
Additional Director of RNPL, to his own account, this besides transfer
of Rs.1,18,00,000/- into the personal account of Vaidyanathan
Nateshan, husband of the petitioner and co-director.
5. It appears during the course of investigation Vaidyanathan
Nateshan and Amit Srivastava were arrested. A charge-sheet qua
Amit Srivastava was filed on 25.10.2014 and a supplementary charge-
sheet qua Vaidyanathan Nateshan was filed on 04.04.2015. It appears
that both the said persons offered to settle the matter by making
certain payments or transfer of certain assets in favour of the
complainant company and certain proceedings to that effect were
recorded in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. The State submits that the investigation as against the petitioner
and also against her husband is still not complete. Though it is fairly
conceded that the charge-sheet having been filed against Amit
Srivastava, the offences involved have been compounded by said
accused on the statements of the said account and the complainant side
leading to proceedings against him being dropped, such result of the
case against co-accused cannot come to the aid or assistance of the
present petitioner to seek investigation into the case against her being
interdicted. There is no reason why the allegations against her in the
criminal case which are presently under investigation are to be treated
as unfounded. There are reasons to suspect her complicity and it will
not be proper or fair for this court to record any observations either
way lest it prejudices her in her further defence.
7. The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 09, 2018
vk
