The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a broad view at the initial stage of criminal proceedings and the inference of criminal conspiracy from the circumstances of the case.

1. Petitioners of the above captioned four petitions are the accused persons in Criminal Complaint under Sections 415/420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of IPC (Annexure – A) preferred by complainant-M/s. Kanin (India) Pvt. Ltd. in which petitioners have been summoned as accused vide order of 15th September, 2004. Since the aforesaid criminal complaint (Annexure – A) and summoning order of 15th September, 2004 in relation to the aforesaid criminal complaint, is common in the above four petitions and the submissions advanced are also identical, therefore, with the consent of both the sides, above-mentioned four petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. It emerges from the record that complainant-company had purchased plot No.A-46, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi from accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) and in lieu thereof, complainant company had allotted to him 3840 equity shares of Rs.100/-each at par being equivalent to the value of plot i.e. Rs.3,84,000/-. In respect of aforesaid transaction, an Agreement to Sell of 17th November, 1985 was executed by petitioner-accused Arihant Jain in the capacity of Managing Director of the complainant-company and the said Agreement was with accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased).

3. According to respondent No.2-complainant, petitioners were aware of the aforesaid transaction. On 2nd January, 1986, accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) and his wife-Ms. Vinod had resigned from complainant-company and had transferred the shares held by them in favour of Arihant Jain, Inder Jain and Vishwa Jain. Petitioner-Brij Mohan Gupta is brother of Ms. Raman Jain (since deceased), who is wife of petitioner-accused Arihant Jain and was well aware of the transaction regarding the acquiring of plot in question by the complainant-company. Accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) had also executed indemnity bond, his affidavit, undertaking, etc. in favour of complainant-company. In February, 2003, complainant-company had received a legal notice sent by accused-Ms. Raman Jain (since deceased) asking complainant-company to vacate the subject plot as she was claiming its ownership after having obtained Letter of Administration on the basis of Will of 3rd January, 1986 purportedly executed by accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) in her favour.

4. The basic stand taken in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) is that since accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) was no longer the owner of the plot in question, therefore, he could not have bequeathed it to accused-Ms. Raman Jain (since deceased). It is averred in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) that after purchase of the plot in question, complainant-company had spent huge sum of money for raising construction on the plot in question and the house tax is being also paid by the complainant-company. It is also averred in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) that accused-Ms. Vinod was fully aware that her husband accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) had sold the plot in question to complainant-company, but still petitioners-accused persons had entered into criminal conspiracy to wrongfully claim the ownership of the plot in question, which was duly sold by accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) to complainant-company. It is also averred that petitioners-accused persons had given their ‘no objection’ at the time of issuance of Letter of Administration in respect of the plot in question whereas they were well aware about the plot in question having been sold by accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) to complainant-company and thus, petitioners-accused persons had conspired to issue rent receipt, which is forged.

5. According to respondent-complainant, the entire conspiracy to cheat complainant-company was hatched by petitioner-accused Arihant Jain. Impugned order notes that the averment made in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) had been duly substantiated by the pre-su