Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SURESH KAIT, J.
NEPAL SINGH - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE, NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - Respondents
CRL.M.C. No. 558/2015
Decided On : 19.01.2016
For the Appellant :Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Nipun Kumar, P.S. Shakarpur.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr. Narinder Chaudhry, Mr. Pankaj Singh and Mr. Raj Karan Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.2 with Respondent No. 2 in person.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 468 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 - Criminal proceedings - Limitation - Scope of - Limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. applies to only non-serious cases where the imprisonment term does not exceed three years - It pertains to bar of taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation - Bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not applicable as maximum punishment exceeds three years.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 - Criminal proceedings - Investigation pending - Quashing - Denied - Case is still under investigation - Offence of cheating has been partly committed at Delhi and it's consequences ensued at Ghaziabad - It cannot be said that Delhi Police has no jurisdiction and has acted malafidely while registering the case on the complaint of respondent No.2. - Petitioner has allegedly committed an offence - Plea of private vendetta does not play at all - Case being of civil nature - Misappropriation of money by misusing the power of the Society and siphoning off the amount for the personal use of the petitioner - Aggrieved can sue the petitioner for recovery of the amount in a civil suit - A criminal complaint can also be filed with the police to punish the petitioner for the offence committed - Matter is pending for investigation - It cannot be said that there is no evidence or material against the petitioner - Land of the Society in question was sold after Resolution having been passed by the Executive and General Body - Orders passed by the judicial/quasi judicial authorities qua the land - Investigating Agency be directed to look into those documents and if still feel that petitioner has committed any offence, action may be taken accordingly - Petition has been filed pre-maturely - Petition is dismissed.
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 471 - Criminal proceedings - Jurisdiction - Petitioner is the founder member of Co-operative Housing Society Limited - Initially the registered office of the Society was at Ghaziabad, UP - In the year 1998, it was shifted to Shahdra, Delhi, and remained till 2008 - Registered office was finally shifted to Ghaziabad, UP w.e.f. 2012 and is continuing till now - All transactions were carried out in the office at Delhi - Delhi Police has jurisdiction to register the case and investigate the same.
SURESH KAIT, J.
1. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), petitioner seeks directions thereby quashing of FIR No.132/2015 registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Sections 406/409/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
2. The aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2, who stated therein that the petitioner is the founder member of Shiksha Vihar Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short ‘Society’), having registered office at 123-A, Aakanksha Apartment, Abhay Khand-III, Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The said Society was registered in the year 1982. Since then, office of the Society had been located at R-61, Vikas Marg, Delhi, till the year 2000 and thereafter till 2005-2006 remained at Babarpur, Shahdra, Delhi.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated the funds of the Society to the tune of crores of rupees. The cost of the land of the aforesaid Society was worth Rs.350-375 Crores. The petitioner, the then Secretary, had purchased 17 bighas of land in the name of his brother with the funds of the Society which was subsequently sold by them. In addition, without permission of Housing Development Authority and without the permission of the Managing Committee as well General Body Meeting of the Society, the petitioner had sold 25 acres of land to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- to Motilal Goyal, but on the advise of the petitioner, only Rs.23,00,000/- were shown in the accounts of the Society and only Rs.19,15,975/- were deposited in Account No.6559 of the Society, being maintained with Canara Bank, Ghaziabad Branch, and rest of the amount is still unknown, which is the subject matter of investigation.
4. It is further stated that at that time, when the land was sold, cost of one bigha of land was about Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner had played a fraud by selling the land at the higher price but by showing the sale of land at the low price. Thus, he misappropriated the funds of the Society to the tune of Rs.27,00,000/- and in this manner, he misappropriated the entire amount of sale of land of 25 acres.
5. Moreover, the petitioner in connivance with Mr. Ranveer Singh and other associates had withdrawn the amount from Account No.6559 on 18.05.1991 vide cheque No.8065552 for Rs.4,10,000/-, on 25.05.1991 vide cheque No.8065553 for Rs.2,50,000/-, on 15.07.1991 vide cheque No.8065554 for Rs.3,00,000/-, on 14.08.1991 vide cheque No.8065556 for Rs.5,00,000/- and on 17.08.1991 vide cheque No.8065557 for Rs.4,90,000/-. Thus, the aforesaid sum totalling to Rs.19,50,000/- has not been spent in any manner for the account of the Society. Neither the land was purchased nor any development was done and that the Society was authorized only to keep Rs.5,000/- in hand. Thus, the petitioner has misappropriated to the tune of Rs.19,50,000/- within a period of three months in collusion with his associates.
6. The petitioner has shown deposited cash of Rs.69,500/- in his membership account No.1, however, nothing was deposited in the account of the Society. A sum of Rs.69,000/-, Rs.43,000/- and Rs.45,000/- was also shown to have been deposited by three sons of the petitioner, namely, Rajeev Kumar Sisodia, Sanjeev Kumar Sisodia and Sunil Kumar Sisodia respectively. However, the said amount has also not been deposited in the account of the Society. Though a sum of Rs.2,26,000/- has been shown deposited in the account of the Society, in fact, nothing was deposited in that account.
7. The present petition has been filed on the ground that even if the allegations made in the FIR are accepted as true on the face of it, then cause of action accrued within the territory of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Moreover, the land is situated in Ghaziabd, the registered office of the Society is also situated over there, thus, the Delhi Police has neither jurisdiction to investigate the matt
