Delhi High Court
Suman Solanki vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. on 4 October, 2021
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C.No.2386/2020
Judgment reserved on : 22.02.2021
Date of decision : 04.10.2021
SUMAN SOLANKI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sunil Dalal, Sr.Advocate
with Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary
and Mr. Ghanish Bagaria,
Advocates.
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP
for State with SI Kamal Kohli.
Mr.Yogesh Goel, Mr.Aaditya
Gambhir and Mr. Himanshu
Reddy, Advocates for R-2.
AND
+ Crl.M.C.No.2412/2020 and Crl.M.A. No.17028/2020
JOGINDER SINGH LATHER ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Jasbir Singh Malik,
Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kamal Kumar Ghei, APP
for State with SI Kamal Kohli.
Mr.Rajesh Baweja, Advocate
for complainant.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
Crl.M.C. Nos.2386/2020 & 2412/2020 Page 1 of 18
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The petitioners of the two petitions, Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020
and 2412/2020 have assailed the order dated 2.12.2020 of the learned
Link Judge/Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) (North-West),
Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby in relation to the FIR No. 59/2019,
Police Station EOW registered under Sections 406/420/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, in relation to the Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020
filed by Ram Niwas Lather, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
held that as a part of the cause of action arose in the North as well as
the North-West District, both the Courts had jurisdiction to decide the
applications filed by them in accordance with law and thus held that
the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge (NW), Rohini, had
jurisdiction to hear the Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020 filed in relation to
FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW of the applicant Ram Niwas
Lather arrayed as the respondent no.2 to Crl.M.C No. 2386/2020.
2. The submissions that had been made before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, on behalf of the
complainant who is the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020,
presently, under consideration before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, were to the effect that the jurisdiction to hear the bail
application lay with the North District and not the North-West
District. Vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2020, the learned
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) (North-West) had fixed the
hearing of the bail application on merits for the date 4.12.2020. In as
much as, vide order dated 4.12.2020 in Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020,
presently under consideration, the operation of the impugned order
dated 2.12.2020, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity)
North-West, Rohini Courts, in relation to Bail Appln. No. 3959/2020
had been stayed, in the circumstances, as the hearing of the
anticipatory bail application had thus been consequently stayed it was
directed that till the next date of hearing, the applicant of the Bail
Appln. No. 3959/2020 arrayed as respondent No.2 to the Crl.M.C. No.
2386/2020 be not arrested by the Investigating Agency subject to his
not leaving the country. The said interim order is presently in
existence.
3. The petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020, i.e., the complainant
in relation to the case FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW, apart
from seeking the setting aside of the order dated 2.12.2020 of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge (Electricity) North-West, Rohini
Courts on the grounds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had
exceeded jurisdiction by the said order also prayed that the respondent
no.2 be directed to file the bail application before the North District,
Rohini Courts.
4. The petitioner of Crl.M.C. 2412/2020, Joginder Singh Lather,
another co-accused in case FIR No. 59/2019, PS EOW, apart from
seeking that the order dated 2.12.2020 of the learned ASJ (Electricity)
North-West to the extent that it held that the Court of the North
District, Rohini Courts too had jurisdiction to entertain the bail
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
application be set aside, also sought the setting aside of the order dated
5.12.2020 in Bail Appln. No. 4030/2020 which bail application had
been filed by the applicant thereof i.e., the petitioner herein, Joginder
Singh Lather, the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020, in as much as
vide order dated 5.12.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(Electricity) North-West, Rohini Courts had observed that in view of
the submissions that had been made before the Court that this Court
had stayed the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge (Electricity) North-West, thus no interim relief could be granted
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-West on the
application filed seeking the anticipatory bail.
5. The petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 , Joginder Singh
Lather further sought that the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
(Electricity) North-West be directed to decide the bail application of
the applicant, i.e., the petitioner herein, i.e. Joginder Singh Lather in
FIR No 59/2019, Police Station EOW Mandir Marg, as it had
exclusive jurisdiction.
6. Vide order dated 9.12.2020 in as much as the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (Electricity) North-West had declined the
grant of interim relief to the applicant thereof, i.e. Joginder Singh
Lather, the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 qua his application
seeking the grant of anticipatory bail in view of the order dated
4.12.2020 of this Court in Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020, the matter was
directed to be renotified for 21.12.2020 till which date, it was directed
the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020, Joginder Singh Lather be
not arrested till the said date subject to his not leaving the country and
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
joining the investigation of the case as and when required, which
interim order is presently in subsistence.
7. The status report dated 5.12.2020 was submitted by the State in
Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 and the status report dated 18.12.2020 was
filed by the State in Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020. A reply was also filed
on behalf of Sh. Ram Niwas Lather arrayed as respondent No.2 to
Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 to contend that it is only the Court falling in
the North-West District which had jurisdiction to decide the bail
application of the applicant Ram Niwas Lather arrayed as respondent
No.2 to Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020.
8. Submissions were made on behalf of the State by the learned
APP for State and on behalf of the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No.
2386/2020 by the learned counsel as also on behalf of the respondent
No.2 of Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 by his learned counsel.
9. As per the status reports in both the petitions placed on record
as submitted by the State, FIR No. 59/2019 Police Station EOW dated
4.4.2019 under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, was registered on the complaint of Ms. Suman Solanki
(petitioner of Crl.M.C.2386/2020) and others against M/s Prabhu
Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, namely, Bijender Singh
Lather, Joginder Singh Lather (the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No
2412/2020), Ram Niwas Lather (the respondent No.2 of Crl.M.C. No
2386/2020), Sajjan Singh Beniwal and Ms. Bhawna Lather and other
officials of the accused company. The complainants had contended
that they had booked flats/spaces in a residential project, namely,
PDM Hi-Tech Homes, situated at Section 3A, Bahadurgarh, District
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Jhajjar, Haryana, launched by the accused company, i.e., M/s Prabhu
Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd in 2012 and as per the status report it was
alleged that in order to allure the home-buyers, the accused company
showed glitzy brochures, published advertisements and installed big
hoardings across Delhi and Bahadurgarh. The complainants were
stated to have visited their office of M/s Prabhu Shanti Real Estate
Pvt. Ltd at Ground Floor, Flat No.-2, Block-D, Pocket-5, Sector-15,
Rohini, North Delhi, Pitampura, Delhi where the accused made
several representations and gave false assurances to the complainants
claiming that they had absolute ownership of the entire land and that
the land is free from all kinds of encumbrances. As per the status
report, the accused company had also represented that it had sufficient
funds to complete the entire project within the stipulated time without
the requirement of any loan. As per the status report, the directors and
the other persons of the accused company had made the
complainants/home buyers believe that the amount invested by them
was for the specific purpose of purchasing of flats and that their
monies would be kept as an entrustment with the accused company
and would be solely utilized for the construction of the proposed
project. As per the submissions through the status report as submitted
by the State, it had been alleged that in 2012, the Directors of the
accused company had assured the complainants that they would hand
over the flats within the next two and a half years and believing this
representation of the accused directors, the complainants had booked
their flats in the proposed project at their Delhi based office of the
accused company.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
10. As per the status report the accused company had collected
more than Rs.155 crores from the innocent home buyers/complainants
and had siphoned off the same for their other projects in furtherance of
their dishonest intention and did not utilize the same on the project
related to the complainants due to which the accused company could
not handover the possession of the flats on time.
11. As per the status report in Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020, dated
5.12.2020 submitted under the signatures of the ACP, Economic
Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, it had been submitted to the effect that
the case had been registered on the complaint of Ms. Suman Solanki,
(the petitioner of Crl.M.C. No.2386/2020), and she had initially met
with the directors of the accused company M/s Prabhu Shanti Real
Estate Pvt. Ltd. at the office BU-l, SFS Flats, Pitampura, New Delhi,
and that most of the payments were deposited at their registered office
at Flat No-2, Ground Floor, Block-D, Pocket-5, Sector- 15, Rohini,
North Delhi, in relation to the project PDM Hi-Tech Homes and all
further correspondence was made at his registered office of the
accused company. As per this status report submitted in Crl.M.C.
No.2386/2020, it was submitted on behalf of the State that after the
registration of the FIR, most home buyers had filed their complaints
against the accused company with the same allegations at the Police
Station KN Katju Marg, New Delhi and the same were transferred to
the EOW and that all the complaints had been clubbed with this case
(an apparent reference to the complaint of Suman Solanki, petitioner
of Crl.M.C. No 2386/2020).
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
12. It was submitted further that this is a multi-victim case and most
of the victims met the accused directors at the registered office of
accused company, i.e., Flat No-2 , Ground Floor, Block-D, Pocket-5,
Sector-15 , Rohini, North Delhi and had deposited their payments
there.
13. The said status report dated 5.12.2020 of the State is inter alia to
the effect that one of the accused Bijender Singh Lather filed an
anticipatory bail application before the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge, (Electricity) North-West, which was dismissed and
that another accused Joginder Singh Lather, i.e., the petitioner of
Crl.M.C. No 2412/2020 filed an anticipatory bail application before
the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Electricity)
North-West, Rohini, which was dismissed as withdrawn and that the
complainant filed two applications seeking the monitoring of the case
and for deciding the role of other accused persons which applications
were filed by the complainant before the Court of the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Courts, and that the said applications
are stated to be pending there. It is stated further through the status
report submitted by the State in Crl.M.C. No.2386/2020 that during
the investigation on 24.2.2020, on an application of the Investigating
Officer, the learned CMM (North) Rohini Courts issued non bailable
warrants against the accused directors, namely, Sajjan Singh Beniwal,
Joginder Singh Lather (petitioner of Crl.M.C. No 2412/2020),
Bijender Singh Lather and Ram Niwas Lather (respondent no.2 of
Crl.M.C. No. 2389/2020) and on the submission of the Investigating
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
Officer, the learned CMM, Rohini Courts, had issued fresh NBWs
against all the accused directors on 17.8.2020.
14. The State further submitted that on 16.10.2020 the process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued by the learned CMM, North,
Rohini Courts, against all the accused persons, namely, Sajjan Singh
Beniwal, Joginder Singh Lather (petitioner of Crl.M.C. No
2412/2020), Bijender Singh Lather and Ram Niwas Lather
(respondent no.2 of Crl.M.C. No. 2389/2020). It was also submitted
through this status report that Sajjan Singh Beniwal filed an
anticipatory bail application before the Court of the Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, (Electricity) North-West, which
application was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, North, Rohini Courts and was dismissed on 15.10.2020. The
second anticipatory bail application filed by Sajjan Singh Beniwal
before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, North District
was also dismissed on 18.11.2020 . It was also submitted by the State
that the accused Bijender Singh Lather who had been granted interim
protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 2.11.2020
in SLP(Crl.) Diary No. 208/2020 which was then pending there,
(which petition has since been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court ) had also filed an application seeking the cancellation of the
proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, before the Court of
Learned CMM, North, Rohini Courts.
15. It was also submitted by the State through the status report
dated 5.12.2020 submitted in Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 that during the
course of investigation the record was put up which indicated that the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
registered office of the accused company M/s Prabhu Shanti Real
Estate Pvt. Ltd, is at Flat No.2 Ground Floor, Block-D, Pocket-5,
Sector-15, Rohini, North Delhi.
16. The respondent No.2 arrayed to the Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020
Ram Niwas Lather in his reply to Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 submitted
that in column 5 of the FIR, the place of occurrence had been shown
as Pitampura, New Delhi, which falls in the North-West District, New
Delhi and that the Inquiry Officer had also formed an opinion that the
place of occurrence fell in Pitampura in North-West District, New
Delhi and submitted that the jurisdiction to hear the bail application
lay with the North-West District and inter alia the respondent No.2 to
Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 submitted that if the complainant, i.e., the
petitioner of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 had not filed her complaint in
the Court of the CMM, North, Rohini Courts, the Investigating Officer
would not have taken non-bailable warrants nor initiated any
proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 in the Court of the
CMM, North, Rohini Courts.
17. It was submitted by the respondent No.2 to Crl.M.C. No.
2386/2020 that an application filed by one of the complainants for
transfer of the bail application filed by Joginder Singh Lather, i.e., the
present petitioner to Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 was dismissed vide
order dated 9.9.2020 of the District & Sessions Judge, North-West
Rohini Courts, New Delhi. It was inter alia submitted on behalf of the
respondent No.2 to Crl.M.C. No.2386/2020, to the effect that there
was no objection from the Investigating Officer nor from the
complainant that the Court of the North-West District had no
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the bail application. The
respondent No.2 to Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 thus submitted that the
complainant was delaying and misleading the proceeding by raising
frivolous objections in respect of the jurisdiction of the Court.
18. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-West, Rohini
Courts vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2020 had observed on the
aspect of the territorial jurisdiction as under:-
"Ld. Defence Counsel states that the jurisdiction lies with the
North West District; whereas the Ld. Counsel for the
complainant has argued that the jurisdiction lies with the
North District. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the buyer
agreement dated 30.06.2013 where the registered office of
the company has been shown as BU-1, SFS Flats, Pitampura,
New Delhi. It is argued that in the FIR also, the place of
occurrence of offence has been shown as Pitampura, which
falls within the jurisdiction of North-West District and this
court has the jurisdiction over the present anticipatory bail
application. It is further argued that at the time, when the
present offence was allegedly committed by the accused
persons, the registered office of the company was at
Pitampura, which lies within the jurisdiction of North-West
District. It is further argued that the I.O. in his reply has no
objection on the point of jurisdiction of this court to hear the
present application. Ld. Defence counsel has referred to the
FIR and state that it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the
offence was committed in the North-District.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has
argued that the Company shifted its office to Rohini from
Pitampura and the complainant even visited the said office at
Rohini and the same has been mentioned in the FIR. It is
further stated that as per the statement of the
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
account/payment advice was issued to the complainant from
the office situated at Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi and the offence
of cheating continued at the office of situated at Sector-15,
Rohini, Delhi, which lies within the jurisdiction of North
District.
On rival submissions, it is observed here that initially the
complainant approached the PS KNK Marg, which lies in the
jurisdiction of North District, Rohini Court, Delhi. After that,
the SHO KNK Marg referred the present complaint and other
complainants relating to the same cause of action to the
EOW of the Delhi Police. Thereafter, the present FIR was
registered u/s. 420/406/120 B IPC, PS EOW. The I.O
submitted that as per the details of the Registrar of
Companies, the office of the accused company has been
shown in Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi, which lies within the
jurisdiction of North District, Delhi.
The reply of the I.O shows that during investigation, NBWs
against the accused persons of the present FIR were obtained
from the court of Ld. CMM, North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi and raids were conducted for execution of NBW. It is
further stated in the reply that proceedings u/s. 82 Cr. P.C.
have been initiated against the absconded accused persons
before the court of Ld. CMM, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi. It
is also relevant to mention here that one of the accused
person namely Sajjan Singh Beniwal approached Ld. ASJ,
North District for anticipatory bail, which was however
dismissed; whereas the other accused persons namely Sh.
Bijender Singh Lather and Joginder Singh Lather
approached Ld. ASJ, North West District for seeking
anticipatory bails, which were later on dismissed.
It is observed here that the buyer seller agreement between
the present accused and the complainant was registered at
Pitampura office. Later on, the accused company shifted its
address to Sector 15 Rohini. The complainant also visited the
registered office at Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi which has been
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
presently the registered office on the record of the Registrar
of Companies. The investigation is still going on in the
present case.
The proceedings with regard to the investigation such as
issuance of NBW and proceedings u/s. 82 Cr. P.C are being
done by the Ld. CMM, North District, Rohini, Delhi.
Nevertheless, the offence of cheating, criminal breach of
trust, misappropriation of property etc. can be inquired into
and tried by the court where any part of the cause of action
arises. At this stage of investigation, preference to any part of
the cause of action over the other one for the purpose of
territorial jurisdiction ought not to be given inasmuch as the
Buyer Agreement between the accused company and the
complainant was executed at BU -1, SFS Flats, Pitampura
which lies in the territorial jurisdiction of the North-West
District, whereas the payment scheduled was issued to the
complainant from Rohini office which falls in the jurisdiction
of the North District. Since, the part of the cause of action
arose at the North as well as the North-West District,
therefore, both the courts have jurisdiction to decide the
applications filed before them in accordance with law.
Accordingly, this court has jurisdiction to hear the present
bail application."
19. As per the FIR, it has been stated to the effect:
3. The brief of the complaint is that in the year 2008, Prabhu
Shanti Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the
Company)' announced a residential project "P.D.M. Hi-Tech
Homes" consisting of more than 435 flats in more than 6
towers on the land ad·measuring 8.976 acres in sector-3A,
Bahadurgarh, (District Jhajjar, Haryana. To allure the
home-buyers, glitzy brochures and advertisement were
published, and big hoardings were put at various places
across Delhi and Bahadurgarh. Besides this, the phone calls
were also used to be made and SMS were also sent to me and
other home buyers to invite us to invest in their property and
to purchase flats in their project.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
.....
....
....
7. I believed the representation given by them initially at
their head office at Delhi, Pitampura, thereafter, at the site of
the project 'at Bahadurgarh and thus fell pray and parted
with the money to book a flat at their Delhi Office and in this
manner by now I have paid Rs.59,93,189/· (Fifty Nine lacs
Ninety three thousand one hundred eighty nine only) and
since 2012 up till this time the company did not provide a
roof to me and my children.
20. The impugned order dated 2.12.2020 of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, North-West has categorically stated that the FIR was
lodged giving the place of occurrence at Pitampura, New Delhi, which
was within the North-West District, however the accused company
had given its office at Sector-15 Rohini, Delhi, which falls within the
jurisdiction of North District, Delhi and that whereas the complaint
was registered at the Pitampura office, the accused company had
shifted its address to Sector-15, Rohini, which was also shown to be
the registered office on the record of the Registrar of Companies of the
accused.
21. Furthermore, it is essential to observe that in terms of Section
462 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which reads to the effect:
"Section 462 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
462. Proceedings in wrong place. No finding, sentence or order of
any Criminal Court shall be set aside merely on the ground that
the inquiry, trial or other proceedings in the course of which it was
arrived at or passed, took place in a wrong sessions division,
district, sub- division or other local area, unless it appears that
such error has in fact occasioned a failure of justice."
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
apparently, there has been no failure of justice that has occasioned
to either of the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2020
in Bail Application Nos.3959/2020 and 4030/2020.
22. It is apparent thus as rightly held vide the impugned order dated
2.12.2020, in as much as the cause of action had arisen both in the
North-West and North Districts of Delhi, both the Courts having
jurisdiction to hear the bail applications of the North-West and North
Districts have jurisdiction to hear the said bail applications arising out
of FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW and thus, it is held that there
is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 2.12.2020 that has been
assailed in both the petitions, i.e., Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 and
2412/2020.
23. However, in as much as the proceedings in relation to the
investigation such as issuance of NBW and proceedings under Section
82 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, have been initiated in the Court of the learned
CMM, North District, Rohini Courts and as the registered office of the
accused company is situated at Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi which falls
within the jurisdiction of the North District, Delhi and as per the status
report dated 5.12.2020 submitted by the State in Crl.M.C. No.
2386/2020, the complainant had filed two applications regarding the
monitoring of the case and deciding the role of other accused persons
which was pending before the Court of the CMM (North) coupled
with the factum that as per the said status report all further
correspondence that had been made by the complainant had been at
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
the registered office of the accused company being Flat No.2, Ground
Floor, Pocket 5, Sector-15, Rohini (North), Delhi, in view thereof, the
proceedings in relation to the bail application Nos. 3959/2020 and
4030/2020 qua FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW, Mandir Marg
have necessarily to be dealt with by the Court having jurisdiction over
the North District, Rohini Courts.
24. Thus qua Crl.M.C. No 2386/2020, though as already observed
herein above, it is held that there is no infirmity in the impugned order
dated 2.12.2020 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-
West, Delhi, it is directed that it is open to the respondent No.2 Ram
Niwas Lather to move an application seeking grant of bail in relation
to the FIR No. 59/2019, Police Station EOW, Mandir Marg registered
under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by date
11.10.2021 till which date the interim restraint against arrest of the
respondent No.2 to Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 Ram Niwas Lather
subject to his not leaving the country, shall continue. The application,
if any, filed by Ram Niwas Lather arrayed as respondent no.2 to
Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 seeking grant of bail before the concerned
Court having jurisdiction over the North District, Delhi in relation to
the FIR No. 59/2019, EOW would be decided on its own merits. It is
made expressly clear that the interim restraint from arrest granted vide
order dated 4.12.2020 and extended herein thereafter during the
pendency of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 and extended as directed
hereinabove till the date 11.10.2021 shall automatically stand vacated
w.e.f. 12.10.2021. The Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 is disposed of
accordingly.
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
25. As regards the prayer in Crl.M.C. No 2412/2020, filed by
Joginder Singh Lather, as already observed herein above there being
no infirmity in the impugned order dated 2.12.2020, it is held that
there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, North-West, holding to the extent that the Courts of
the North District, Delhi also have jurisdiction to entertain the bail
applications presented. As regards the further prayer made vide this
petition Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 seeking that the bail application of
the applicant Joginder Singh Lather bearing Bail Registration no.
4030/2020 be disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
North-West, it is directed to the effect that Joginder Singh Lather may
move an application seeking grant of bail in relation to the FIR No.
59/2019, Police Station EOW, Mandir Marg registered under Sections
406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by date 11.10.2021
till which date the interim restraint against arrest of the petitioner
Joginder Singh Lather to Crl.M.C. No 2412/2020 subject to his not
leaving the country and subject to his joining the investigation as and
when required by the Investigating Officer, shall continue. The
application, if any, filed by Joginder Singh Lather petitioner to
Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 seeking grant of bail before the concerned
Court having jurisdiction over the North District, Delhi in relation to
the FIR No. 59/2019, EOW would be decided on its own merits. It is
made expressly clear that the interim restraint from arrest granted vide
order dated 4.12.2020 and extended herein thereafter during the
pendency of Crl.M.C. No. 2386/2020 and extended as directed
hereinabove till the date 11.10.2021 shall automatically stand vacated
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
w.e.f. 12.10.2021. The Crl.M.C. No. 2412/2020 is disposed of
accordingly.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
OCTOBER 04, 2021/SV
Signature
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SUMIT GHAI
Signing
Date:04.10.2021
17:36:05
This file is
digitally signed by
PS to HMJ ANU
MALHOTRA.
