( 1 ). THIS petition has been filed by M/s National Housing and Industrial Development Corporation P. Ltd. (NAHIDCO) through its Director Sh. Harvinder Kumar Gupta under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1937 (Code for short) for quashing the impugned order dated 7. 10. 89 of learned ACMM and 11. 1. 1991 of learned ASJ, New Delhi eith further prayer to restore back to the Company three attached flats,m namely, M-2, M-3 and M-4, Magnum House, Karam Pura Complex, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi with all its records lying there.

( 2 ). I have beard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The circumstances in which these properties came to be attached are that one Sadhu Singh Gill addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (west) Rajouri Garden New Delhi resulting in the recording of FIR 241 dated 10. 10. 88 at PS Moti Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that NAHIDCO having their office at 101, Magnum House, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi published an advertisement in Hindustan Times in March/ April, 1984 for providing dwelling units near D. L. F. Qutab Enclave and village Nathu Pura. In response to it, he applied for a Hat having a total area of 1250 sq. ft. with an estimated cost of Rs. 55. 600. 00. He made initial deposit of Rs. 9750. 00 on 12. 5. 1984. Thereafter he deposited three more amounts totalling Rs. 21. 800. 00. As per terms and conditions of the Company, the second instalment was payable at the time of registration of land in the name of individuals concerned. But it was all fraud and cheating because NAHIDCO had neither land nor any licence for constructing house. More than 384 persons bad been cheated in this manner by the Managing Director of NAHIDCO namely, M. R. Gupta alias M. R. Jyoti. As per further terms and conditions, if it failed to provide the dwelling units within three years, it was bound to refund the entire amount along with 10% interest. He applied for refund of the amount after completion of three years on 17. 9. 1987 and requested Jyoti many. times to refund the same. Jyoti continued to make promises to refund in the last week of March, 1988 but had been absconding since February, 1988. Thus he requested appropriate action.

( 3 ). DURING the course of investigation the prosecution attached the impugned properties because in spite of the fact that Jyoti bad been declared a proclaimed offender on 7. 10. 89, he did not surrender. His other three brothers, namely, Rakesh Gupta, Padam Raj Gupta and Harvinder Gupta, however, have been appearing during the course of proceedings.

( 4 ). IN this petition Harvinder Kumar Gupta claims to be one of its Directors and share holder of NAHIDCO and says that by attachment of the aforesaid properties, all the share holders. Directors and others interested in the affairs of the Company including him have been debarred from having access to the aforesaid properties and the business of the company which was being carried on from those flats. This action of the Investigating Agency bad resulted in enormous financial loss to him and others connected with the Company. Such action of the Investigating Agency also violated the principle of natural justics and his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. It was sheer abuse of the process of the court. It is further contended that only the property presently belonging to the absconding accused could have been attached under Section 83 of the Code. The attached property, in fact, did not belong to the absconding accused and belongs to the Company. It is also alleged that NAHIDCO is neither an accused nor it ever received any money from the complainant or any other depositor.

( 5 ). I have given my careful consideration to the submissions by Mr. Mehra and countered by learned counsel for the State. The order of learned ASJ clearly indicates that during the course of investigation it was found that the absconding accused started NAHIDCO as his sole proprie