Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 May, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MCRC No. 20440 of 2023
(SANJAY THAKUR AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Dated : 12-05-2023
Shri Vinay Saraf and Shri R.S. Chhabra - Sr. Advocate with Shri
Namit Jain - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Vinod Thakur - GA for respondent No.1 and 2.
Shri Anil Khare - Sr. Advocate with Ms. Priya Sharma - Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Shri V.K. Jain - Sr. Advocate with Shri Arpit Oswal - Advocate for
respondent No.4.
This is petition u/S.482 of the Cr.P.C for quashment of the FIR bearing
Crime No.176/2023 and subsequent proceedings thereto registered against the
applicants on 27.4.2023 u/Ss.420, 467, 468 of IPC. The applicants claims to
be partners of Partnership Firm i.e. M/s. Kusum Real Estate which was formed
in the year 2019 to carry out operations in the real estate sector. The
partnership Firm is registered Firm. It is submitted that the applicant Firm
purchased the plots by registered sale deeds at village Ringnodiya, Tehsil
Sanwer and after due permission diverted the plots. It is stated that in April
2022 the respondent No.3 and 4 approached the applicants and proposed to
develop a colony and invest an amount in the Firm. According to them, the
value of the property of the Firm is Rupees 104 crores and 41 lakhs rupees.
After considering the valuation report, the respondent No.3 and 4 invested an
amount of Rupees Six crore depositing the same in the account of the Firm
through NEFT and RTGS. According to the applicants, the respondent No.3
and 4 agreed to form a new partnership deed by paying Rupees 110 crores as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 12-05-2023
18:24:56
consideration for their retirement from the said Firm. It is alleged that the
private respondents got signed deed of retirement on the promise that a final
settlement showing the amount due to the applicants by the private respondents
could only be prepared by Chartered Accountant. The applicants acting bona
fide and considering prior investment of Rupees Six crores by the private
respondents in the said Firm signed the aforesaid deed but the same was not
got notarised. It is stated that the respondent No.3 and 4 did not pay the said
amount and only paid Rupees Six crore and fraudulently got notarised the deed
of retirement. The applicants made a written complaint to Police Station,
Sanwer. After preliminary investigation, ADPO opined that a prima facie
cognizable case is made out but the police station, Sanwer did not register the
FIR, thereafter they filed an application u/S.156(3) of Cr.P.C before the
Magistrate to call the status report. During the pendency of the said matter
before JMFC, the respondent No.3 and 4 got registered FIR at police station,
Tukoganj on 27th April, 2023 at 1.00 AM in the night and alleged that despite
deed of retirement, the respondents operated the account of the Firm and
transferred Rupees Six crore in the account of the respondents No.3 and 4.
They have operated the account fraudulently and cheated.
Counsel for applicants submits that they had made complaint to the
police station, Sanwer and despite investigation and ADPO report, the FIR was
not registered on their complaint and then they filed an application u/S.156(3) of
Cr.P.C and during the pendency of the said application, the respondent No.3
and 4 got registered FIR at police station, Tukoganj alleging the commission of
fraud by operating account of the Firm unauthorisedly despite deed of
retirement. Thus, prima facie there is abuse of the process of law.
Counsel for State prayed for time to call for the case diary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 12-05-2023
18:24:56
Counsel for respondent No.3 and 4 made appearance in advance without
notice and objected and submitted that at this stage, there can be no interference
for quashment of FIR and investigation. In support of their submissions, they
have relied on the judgment passed by the Apex court in the case of
Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) SCC
Online SC 315 and argued that the investigation should not be stayed.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and taking into consideration the
submissions, it appears that there is a serious dispute of partnership of the
Firm between the partners of the Firm. The notarisation of deed of retirement
is seriously disputed. From the documents, prima face it is manifest that the
partnership Firm is still registered in the name of the present applicants and as
per the letter of the Bank, the applicants are still authorised signatory of the
partnership firm. Prima facie case is made out. Issue notice to the
respondents. The notice is accepted by the respective counsels for respondent
No.3 and 4.
Counsel for State is granted time to call the case diary and the respondent
No.3 and 4 may file their written objection if they desire so.
As an interim measure, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken
against the applicants in pursuant to the impugned FIR, however, it is made
clear that there is no stay of investigation and the applicants shall co-operate
with the investigation.
List the matter after ensuing summer vacation.
c.c as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 12-05-2023
18:24:56
VM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VARGHESE
MATHEW
Signing time: 12-05-2023
18:24:56
