Delhi High Court
Amit Gupta vs State & Anr. on 4 July, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: December 14, 2021
Decided on: July 04, 2022
+ CRL.M.C. 1203/2021
AMIT GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, Adv. with
petitioner thru VC.
versus
STATE & ANR. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP for State
with SI Mahipal Singh, P.S. Hauz
Khas.
Mr. Tushar Jarwal, Mr. Anurag Soan,
Advs. for R-2 with R-2/ Anish
through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
CRL.M.C. 1203/2021
1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 326/2018
under Sections 420/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Hauz Khas on the
complaint of the respondent No. 2 on the ground that the parties had settled
their disputes vide the MoU dated 8th September 2019. According to the
petitioner, he has complied with the terms of settlement arrived at between
the parties and statement of the respondent No. 2 through his father was also
recorded before the learned Additional District Judge, South District, Saket
Courts on 27th January 2020 in Suit No. 700/2018 filed by the respondent
No. 2 titled 'Anish Goel Vs. Amit Gupta' and based on the settlement, the
petitioner withdrew a company petition filed by him on 21st October 2019,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
however, now the respondent No. 2 is not co-operating and coming forward
to quash the FIR in question. The petitioner having complied with all his
obligations as envisaged under the MoU dated 8th September 2019, the
respondent No. 2 on one pretext or the other, cannot deny, no objection
affidavit for the quashing of the above-noted FIR.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner and the respondent No.
2 were known to each other for the last several years. However, disputes
arose between them in respect of Plot No. 95, Dona Paula Village Taleigao,
Goa and shareholding of M/s. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Pursuant to the
dispute, respondent No. 2 filed a Civil Suit No. 700/2018 titled as 'Anish
Goel Vs. Amit Gupta' before the learned Additional District Judge for
recovery of money as also lodged the above-noted FIR at P.S. Hauz Khas in
respect of Plot No. 95, Dona Paula Village, Teleigao, Goa. The petitioner
filed a company petition being Company Petition No. 05/241-241/PB/2019
titled 'Amit Gupta Vs. M/s. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' against
the respondent No. 2 in respect of the shareholding before the Hon'ble
NCLT. Petitioner also filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.
2 at P.S. Defence Colony which was thereafter transferred to Economic
Offences Wing and was pending preliminary enquiry. With the intervention
of the parents of both the sides and common friends, a settlement was
arrived between the parties vide MoU dated 8th September 2019, copy
whereof is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present petition.
3. The agreement/MoU dated 8th September 2019 (Annexure P-2)
executed between the parties reads as under:-
"1. That as the result of aforesaid negotiations First Party
agrees to pay a total amount of ₹1,25,00,000/- (One Crore
Twenty Five Lacs Only) to the Second Party. The part payment
of ₹50,00,000/- (Fifty Lacs Only) out of the aforesaid total
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
amount has already been made as under:-
(a) ₹25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs Only) by
cheque/RTGS/UTR no.ALLA201809045010408632 dated
04.09.2019 drawn on Allahabad Bank, branch by
Sh.Satish Chand Gupta on behalf of First party.
(b) ₹25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs only) by way of two
transfers of ₹10,00,000/- and ₹15,00,000/- respectively,
both from Kotak Mahindra Bank A/C of First party to A/c
of Second Party by cheque no.000851 & 000852, dated
06.09.2019 and 07.09.2019 respectively.
(c) Remaining amount of ₹75,00,000/- (Seventy Five
Lacs Only) vide three post dated cheques for amount
₹25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lacs Only) each bearing
Nos.000780, 000778 and 000779 dated 07.10.2019,
07.01.2020 and 22.01.2020 respectively all Drawn on
Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malviya Nagar branch, New
Delhi.
2. It is also agreed by and between the parties that Second Party
shall withdraw the complaint made by it to police. The Second
Party undertakes to do all such things and acts such as
withdrawing complaining, appear in person, file affidavits,
applications, give statement etc. Which are required in order to
get the said FIR No.326/2018 U/s 420/406/34 IPC, P.S. Hauz
Khas, New Delhi against the First Party quashed from the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and in the alternative
compounded from the concerned Court of competent
jurisdiction at the earliest.
3. It is also agreed by and between the parties that the Second
Party shall also help in securing Bail for the First Party in the
aforesaid FIR No.326/2018 U/s 420/406/34 IPC, P.S. Hauz
Khas, New Delhi. The Second Party further undertakes to do
all such things and acts such as appear in person, file affidavits,
applications, give statement etc. Which are required in order to
get the bail secured for the First Party immediately.
4. That the First party, his wife or any of his family members have
no claim against the Second Party, his wife, mother or any of
the company as referred to by the First Party in his written
statement. The Second Party has not asked for investment from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
the First Party or his wife in the companies M/s Shree Yogmaya
Traders, M/s Prudence Management Services, M/s Prudence
Investments, M/s NPPO IT Services Pvt. Ltd. The Second Party
is not running any business other than his professional
activities. The First Party shall not press his defence or claim
set out in the written statement. The First Party or his wife
shall have no claim against the companies referred by the First
Party in the written statement and assures neither the First
Party nor his wife nor any of his family members directly or
indirectly shall make any claim against the second party, his
wife, mother, Umesh Goel and company referred to in the
written statement. All claims, if any, stand settled under the
present settlement. No amount was advanced by the First Party
in the sum of ₹1,05,00,000/- and no transfer was made in M/S
Prudence Management Services. No investment was made in
any form as claimed in the written statement. No claim will be
made by the First Party, his family against the Second Party in
view of plea raised in the written statement directly or indirectly
by the First Party.
5. That the First Party assures the Second Party that the cheques
issued by the First Party in favour of the Second party in the
terms of the compromise shall be honoured on presentation and
the First Party shall ensure that the Second Party shall receive
the payment on presentation. The Second Party on the
assurance and representation of the First Party that the
compromise/settlement shall be carried out in the terms agreed
and on the said assurance, the Second Party has agreed to
leave his claim on account of interest payable by the First Party
to the Second Party.
6. It is agreed by and between the parties that upon completion of
entire payment the present Compromise/Settlement/MOU shall
filed before the court of Ms. Vineeta Goyal ADJ, Saket Courts
in Civil Suit No.700/2018 titled as "Anish Goel Vs. Amit
Gupta" and both parties shall pray for passing a compromise
decree in view of this Compromise/Settlement/MOU, however,
subject to approval and prerogative of Court n passing the
same. In the event the said Civil Court declines to pass a
Compromise decree, the Second Party shall withdraw the Civil
Suit No.700/2018 titled as "Anish Goel vs. Amit Gupta"
against the First Party, unconditionally and without any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
reservations but however, subject to terms and conditions of
this Compromise/Settlement/MOU.
7. That it is further agreed by and between the parties that the
shareholding in M/s Skyscraper Buildcom Private Limited
which is a company registered under Indian companies Act
shall be 50% each between First Party and Second Party. The
said company is having total 1,35,000= shares out of which
First Party now is having 10,000= shares rest of shares are
held by Second Party and his wife. Thus 57500= shares shall be
transferred by Second Party (or his wife) to First Party to make
a total of 67500= shares of First Party, remaining 67500=
share shall be second Party making it 50% each of total
shareholding of the company. Further, First party shall not
claim any previous dues in respect of shares from Second Party.
That no separate consideration of any shares transferred as per
this Compromise/Settlement/MOU shall be paid by any of the
parties which is included in the settlement amount of this
compromise/Settlement/MOU. Further at present there are
three directors of the said company i.e. First Party, Second
party and Smt. Rashi Bhatia (wife of Second Party). It is
agreed by and between the parties that either Second Party or
his wife Mrs. Rashi Bhatia shall resign from the directorship of
the said company thereby making the number of directors as
two i.ee First Party and either of the remaining two present
directors. Needless to say that in case Smt.Rashi Bhatia does
not resign then Second Party shall resign from directorship of
the said company.
8. That it is further agreed by and between the parties that First
Party shall withdraw the company petition No.05/241-
241/PB/2019 titled as "Amit Gupta vs. M/s Skyscraper
Buildcon Private Limited & Ors." Against the Second Party,
which is now pending before National Company Law Tribunal
(NCLT), unconditionally and without any reservations.
9. It is also agreed by and between the parties that First Party
shall withdraw the complaint made by it to police which is now
with EOW. The First Party undertakes to do all such things
such as withdrawing complaint, appear in person, file
applications, give statement etc. Which are required in order to
get the said complaint withdrawn against the Second Party.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
10.It is also further agreed by and between the parties that with
this Compromise/Settlement/MOU and full and final payment of
₹1,25,00,000/- (One Crore Twenty Five Lacs Only) by First
Party to the second Party all the claims of both the parties in
respect of the issues as mentioned above, as well as otherwise
are satisfied and none of the parties shall file any other
case/claim/criminal complaint against each other in this
respect.
11.This Compromise/Settlement/MOU shall be binding on the
respective parties as well as their legal heirs.
12.This Compromise/Settlement/MOU is made voluntarily by the
parties without any pressure, force, coercion from any corner."
4. Based on the settlement, it is not disputed that the respondent No. 2
has received the balance payment of ₹75 lakhs and pursuant to the
settlement, the petitioner who had filed a complaint at P.S. Defence Colony
which was transferred to EOW, withdrew his complaint. In terms of the
settlement, the petitioner also withdrew the company petition filed by him
being Company Petition No. 05/241-241/PB/2019 titled 'Amit Gupta Vs.
M/s. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.' against the respondent No. 2
before the Hon'ble NCLT and the Hon'ble NCLT thus, dismissed the said
petition vide order dated 21st October 2019 in terms of the settlement dated
8th September 2019. The said order was passed in the presence of the
learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Pursuant to the settlement dated
8th September 2019, statement of the father of the respondent No. 2 on his
behalf was also recorded on 27th January 2020 before the learned Additional
District Judge, South District, Saket Court that the respondent No. 2 had
amicably settled all his disputes with the petitioner and thus, nothing
remained in the suit. Further, the respondent No. 2 also appeared before the
said Court and submitted that he had received the entire payment. The
respondent No. 2 also appeared before the Court and countersigned the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
statement got recorded by him through his father as is evident from
Annexure A-5 filed with the petition. Thus, all the disputes having been
settled, the respondent No. 2 was not coming forward for making his
statement before this Court.
5. In the above-noted FIR, the respondent No. 2 stated that he was a
Chartered Accountant and was maintaining good relations with the
petitioner. Both the families shared cordial relationship for the last fifty
years. It is alleged that in July 2015, petitioner came to the residence of the
respondent No. 2 and represented that he was the absolute and exclusive
owner of the house property being Plot No. 95, known as Vainguinim
Valley/Machados Valley at Dona Paula, Village Talegio, Goa (in short, the
property) and induced the complainant to purchase the said property. The
petitioner allegedly represented that the property was located in prime
locality of Goa and would earn huge profits. When the respondent No. 2
was not inclined to purchase the property, the petitioner suggested that an
notorized MoU will be executed between the petitioner and the respondent
No. 2 and the same shall contain a clause whereby the sale deed pertaining
to the property would be executed within a period of two years and in case,
the price of the property escalates, property could be sold by him directly.
Thus, on the inducement of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 agreed to
purchase the property and the sale consideration was fixed at
₹1,70,00,000/-. As the petitioner was in dire need of money, the respondent
No. 2 paid ₹1,65,00,000/- vide cheques to the petitioner who executed
receipt-cum-kachha agreement in relation to the aforesaid payments and
undertook to execute sale deed within two years and that a formal
MoU/Agreement would be entered within a couple of months. Petitioner
also insisted for balance payment of ₹5 lakhs and thus, the respondent No. 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
paid the balance payment also. The MoU in this regard was executed on
17th November 2015. At the time of execution of MoU, the respondent No.
2 asked the petitioner to bring the original documents of the property but the
petitioner instead of bringing the documents informed the respondent No. 2
that the original documents have been misplaced. He further handed over a
copy of FIR, whereby, he informed the Delhi Police regarding misplacement
of original documents of the property. In December 2015, petitioner
approached the complainant and stated that he knows a NRI buyer who is
willing to purchase the property for a sum of ₹2.5 Crores. He again induced
the complainant to sell the property and said that he would negotiate with
the prospective buyer on behalf of the complainant as the petitioner had
various projects running in Goa and it would be difficult for the complainant
to repeatedly come from Delhi to finalize the deal. The complainant thus
consented for the same. When the complainant thereafter contacted the
petitioner, he stated that only if the MoU could be cancelled, that he could
enter into a deal with another person. Since the parties were in a family
relationship, the complainant followed his advice and eventually, got the
MoU and receipt-cum-kachha agreement etc. cancelled by way of an
endorsement in relation to the property as he could show the same to the
prospective buyer. However, as time passed, the petitioner failed to reveal
the status of the property and the complainant became apprehensive about
his investment. Since the complainant wanted to safeguard his interest, he
asked the petitioner to enter into a MoU again. Though the petitioner was
initially not inclined for the same but on the persistence of the complainant,
MoU was executed between the two on 15th February 2016 at residence of
the complainant. At the time of execution of MoU, complainant noted that
the stamp paper on which MoU was prepared was back dated i.e. dated 24 th
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
August 2015 and when the complainant raised objection to the same,
petitioner replied that he was unable to go to Goa to purchase new stamp
paper, therefore, he had brought the stamp paper which he had purchased at
the time of initial payment. After the execution of the MoU, petitioner
informed that the prospective purchaser had backtracked and the deal could
not be finalized. When the complainant asked the petitioner to get the MoU
notarized in Goa, he refused to do the same and stated that he will execute
the sale deed. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed on 20 th
October 2017. When the complainant asked the petitioner to get the
certified copies of the documents of the property, the petitioner kept
postponing the date of execution of the sale deed. To make enquiries, the
complainant went to Goa on 10th January 2018 and found that the petitioner
had already sold the property to one Ms.Geeta Pahwa vide sale deed dated
21st December 2015.
6. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, investigation was carried out.
Petitioner joined the investigation and stated that "money shown in the MOU
for the property was rotated by Anish Goel and the money was owned to him
by Anish Goel as an equal took a friendly loan from him in November, 2014
and Anish Goel gave a sum of rupees 60 lakh till April, 2015 and remaining
40 lakh were rotated among his, mine, my wife's, and Anish Goel's company
to make it 1.65 Cr". When notices were given to the complainant to hand
over the copy of the agreement dated 24th August 2015, he produced
photocopies of the two MoUs in which purchaser is shown as Anish Goel.
On perusal of the same, the said agreement regarding the property stood
cancelled on 19th December 2015. Another MoU dated 15th May 2016 was
also made available which showed Anish Goel as purchaser but the date and
month were blank and 2015 had been scored off and overwritten as 2016.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
7. During investigation, petitioner was asked to produce the documents
pertaining to the property. On perusal of the documents, it was found that
the petitioner had purchased the said property from Dr.Mukesh Chand
Agarwal and Dr.Barjinder Singh on 21st June 2012 and this property was
further sold to Mrs. Geeta Pahwa on 21st December 2015 and regarding this,
petitioner has already informed Anish Goel. Anish Goel was auditor of the
petitioner. Thus, evidently, the facts were in his knowledge. During
investigation, Amit Gupta also provided copies of the civil suit filed and the
MoU dated 15th May 2016 noting the total sale consideration as ₹1.65
Crores on page number 7 and a sum of ₹1.70 Crores on page number 8.
During investigation, though Anish Goel stated that the agreement dated 15th
February 2016 was prepared at his residence, however, it was found to be
executed at Goa though there was no witness to this agreement.
8. As per the Status report, the Investigating Officer also obtained the
bank statements of the complainant, petitioner, NPPO IT Service, Shree
Yogmaya Traders, Prudence Management Services etc. On perusal of the
bank statements, it was found that the complainant received a sum of
₹2000630.48/- in his bank account on 24th August 2015. A sum of ₹25 lakhs
was transferred on the same day from the account of NPPO IT Service Pvt.
Ltd. to the account of Shree Yogmaya Trader and from the account of Shree
Yogmaya Trader, a sum of ₹25 lakhs were transferred to the account of
Anish Goel. Similarly, a sum of ₹45,00,630.48/- were transferred to the
account of complainant Anish Goel on 24 th August 2015. Though the claim
of the Anish Goel was that he paid a sum of ₹95 lakhs to Amit Gupta on 24th
August 2015, however, there were only a balance of ₹45 lakhs in his
account. Further, this amount was found transferred from the account of the
complainant into the account of Amit Gupta and from the account of Amit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
Gupta, it was transferred to the account of Vasudha Gupta, wife of Amit
Gupta. From the account of Vasudha Gupta, this amount was transferred to
the account of Shree Yogmaya Trader and from the account of Shree
Yogmaya Trader, it was transferred to the account of Prudence Management
Service. Further, Prudent Management Service Ltd. transferred the amount
of ₹40 lakhs to the account of complainant Anish Goel. Thereafter, Anish
Goel transferred a sum of ₹30 lakhs to the account of Amit Gupta.
Thereafter on 26th May 2015, Amit Gupta transferred a sum of ₹30 lakhs to
the account of his wife Vasudha Gupta who in turn further transferred this
amount to Shree Yogmaya Trader. From Shree Yogmaya Trader, this
amount was transferred to the account of Prudence Management Service and
again Prudence Management Service transferred this amount to the account
of Anish Goel. Similar rotation of funds were made for a sum of ₹50 lakhs
on 27th August 2015, out of which, petitioner transferred ₹25 lakhs to his
wife's account who transferred the same to Shree Yogmaya Traders and
from Yogmaya Trader, ₹15 lakhs were transferred to Prudence Management
Service, which transferred the said amount to Anish Goel. Further on 28 th
August 2015, Amit Gupta transferred the sum of ₹25 lakhs from his account
to the account of NPPO IT Service Ltd. Though the complainant claimed
that he paid a sum of ₹40 lakhs to Amit Gupta on 13th October 2015,
however, bank statement showed that he had balance of ₹3075/- in his
account on the said date. During investigation, the petitioner also produced
the certified copies of the MoU dated 7th September 2020 pursuant whereto,
a civil suit filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned ADJ, Saket
Courts was withdrawn as also the copy of the email between the petitioner
and the complainant along with the copy of the income tax audit.
Considering the manner in which the amounts were transferred and no loss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
was found to have occurred to the complainant, it is stated that a
cancellation report has been prepared by the police to be filed before the
Court.
9. There is yet another aspect to the matter. Petitioner has placed on
record certified copies of the order sheet(s) dated 27th January 2020 in Suit
No. 700/2018 filed by the complainant titled 'Anish Goel Vs. Amit Gupta'
wherein father of the complainant who was duly authorized appeared.
Father of the complainant who is an advocate himself and was duly
authorized on behalf of complainant appeared on behalf of the complainant
and made a statement that he had been authorized by his son to make a
statement that the disputes involved in the said suit have been amicably
settled with the petitioner herein vide the compromise/MoU/settlement dated
8th September 2019 which also bears his signatures as a witness. The MoU
was exhibited as Ex.PW-1 and that the terms of the MoU have been
complied with and the plaintiff i.e. the complainant herein has received the
entire payment mentioned in the receipt which was exhibited as Ex.P-2.
10. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondent No. 2 by this
Court on 15th April 2021 when on the next date, learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2 appeared and assured that the respondent No. 2 will be
present on the next date. Respondent No. 2 was present on 5 th August 2021
before this Court, who stated that in terms of para 7 of the MoU dated 8 th
September 2019, 57,500/- shares were to be transferred to the petitioner,
however, all material documents including the sale deeds relating to the
properties owned by the company were in possession of the petitioner and
since, there is no trust between the two of them, the said documents are
required to be kept in a place where both the parties could have joint access
to the same so that in future, there is no embezzlement. Petitioner who was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
present through video conferencing stated that the sale deeds in relation to
the properties of the company were not available with him but with the
Director of the other companies who jointly owned the properties. An
affidavit was directed to be filed by the respondent No. 2 indicating what
documents he required from the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to
respond to the said affidavit, informing as to whether those documents were
in his possession or not and if not, in whose possession they were.
11. An affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2. As per the
affidavit of the respondent No. 2, the list of documents pertaining to the
company M/s. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. which are either in the
knowledge or possession of the petitioner, are as under:-
S. No. Document Reference
1 Fixed Asset - Building A -07 Balance Sheet as at March
Shivalik Basement, New 2015
Delhi. - Asset Side under Fixed Asset
a) Original copy of "Building "/ Schedule of
registry Fixed Assets
b) Certified true copy of
the entire property chain
c) Receipt of all MCD dues
paid
2 Honda Car Balance Sheet as at March
a) Original copy of RC 2015-
b) Insurance copy Asset Side under Fixed Asset
c) Copy/receipt of road tax "Car"/ Schedule of Fixed
paid Assets
d) Copy of pollution
certificate
3 Investment in land at Goa Balance Sheet as at March
having address as 151/6 2015- Asset Side- Under
Village Penha de France of the head "Investment"
Bardez Taulka Goa
a) Original copy of
Registry
b) Complete chain of
property in original or
certified true copy
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
c) NOC from forest
department certificate
d) Any other
government documents
received or obtained at the
time of buying the
property or later on
4 Ledger confirmation of Balance Sheet/Legder as at
loan given to Amit Gupta by March 2015
the company. Whether
the same has been repaid
to the Company?
12. Affidavit by the petitioner in response to the affidavit of the
respondent No. 2 was filed, according to which, property A-7, Shivalik
Basement was a portion of basement and was purchased by the company in
the year 2005 for ₹4,00,000/- vide agreement to sell and GPA as the said
property was a lease hold property. The company had purchased this
property to open its office after getting the property converted into freehold.
However, due to multiple owners of this property and despite efforts of the
company, the said property could not be converted into freehold and for this
reason, the company could never start its office in the said premises. One of
the Directors namely Mr.Amit Bhutani was living nearby this property and
thus, used the same for his personal purposes and in lieu of the same, used to
maintain the said property and pay MCD dues. Due to lot of seepage and
other problems, in financial year 2011-12, company took the decision to sell
the same as a lease hold property itself and had received a sum of
₹4,50,000/- in the financial year 2011-12, which is reflected as 'direct
income under the head other income' in the same year. The name of the
buyer has also been revealed. As regards the document thereto it is stated
that the petitioner is not in custody of the said documents and the same are
with the buyer. As regards Honda Car is concerned, it is stated that it was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
purchased in the year 2006 and since inception, was being used by Mr.Amit
Bhutani and all the documents were with him. As per the government
official site, the fitness of that car has already been expired in January 2021
as it is a 15 years old car and the depreciated value of the said car is around
₹8000-₹10,000/-. Since Mr.Amit Bhutani resigned from the company in the
year 2016 and since then, the respondent No. 2 and his wife are in control of
the affairs of the company, the petitioner has no control over the said car.
In respect of the land at Goa, it is stated that the same is a joint property of
the company i.e. Skyscraper Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and one Gauri Green
Homes Pvt. Ltd. which is also a private limited company registered in Goa.
The said property was purchased in the year 2010 and from inception, the
original sale deed and chain of papers of the said property are in possession
of Sh.Gautam Sharma, director of Gauri Green Homes Pvt. Ltd. Sh.Gautam
Sharma is personally known to respondent No. 2 and has met the respondent
No. 2 in Goa. Photocopies of the sale deed and related documents have
been placed on record. Further, in regard to the ledger confirmation of loan,
it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 was the auditor of the
company since 2006 and the respondent No. 2 was also the personal auditor
of the petitioner from 2005. All the facts were in his knowledge and the
petitioner had no access to the documents claimed by the respondent No. 2.
13. From the perusal of the two affidavits, it is evident that petitioner and
respondent No. 2 entered into the MoU based whereon, the petitioner did
not press his company petition and the complaint filed before the P.S.
Defence Colony and the respondent No. 2 withdrew his suit for recovery of
money and having taken the entire consideration, the respondent No. 2
cannot now be permitted to retrieve from the settlement by declining to
consent to the quashing of the FIR No. 326/2018 under Sections 420/406/34
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
IPC registered at P.S. Hauz Khas as the settlement has been acted upon by
both the parties. Further after investigation, it was found that the claim of the
complainant that he transferred a sum of ₹1.70 Crores was not verified as
there were number of transactions showing transfer of the same funds from
the account of the complainant to the petitioner and onwards through the
wife of the petitioner and various companies to the complainant. Further,
pursuant to the settlement dated 8th September 2019, copy whereof is
annexed as Annexure P-2 to the present petition, admittedly, the dispute has
been settled and the complainant had received a sum of ₹1.25 Crores. As
regards Clause 7 of the MoU, it is for the respondent No.2/complainant to
comply with and transfer the shares which he is not doing, ostensibly, on the
ground that he does not have complete documents which documents have
been duly explained to him by the petitioner by way of an affidavit. Be that
as it may, the compliance is on the part of the complainant not on the part of
the petitioner.
14. The complainant having taken advantage of the settlement and
received a sum of ₹1.25 Crores in lieu of all his claims in relation to the
disputes in the above-noted FIR, cannot wriggle out of the settlement, on the
ground that he is not receiving some documents and thus, is not in a position
to comply his obligation as noted in Clause 7 of the MoU.
15. In view of the discussion above, this Court deems it a fit case to quash
the FIR in question. Consequently, FIR No. 326/2018 under Sections
420/406/34 IPC registered at P.S. Hauz Khas on the complaint of the
respondent No. 2 and the proceedings thereto are hereby quashed.
16. Petition is disposed of.
17. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
CRL.M.A. 6126/2021 (stay)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
CRL.M.A. 11816/2021 (modification of order dt. 07.07.2021)
In view of the order passed in petition, the applications are disposed
of as infructuous.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 04, 2022
akb
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATISH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
17:11:11
