IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Arun Kumar Parihar - Petitioner
Versus
State (Govt NCTD) - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 863 of 2021
Decided On : 26-03-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 41, 439, 167, 90, 155, 78, 204, 7, 8, 83, 85, 76, 73, 72, 71, 80, 167 and 129 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420 and 120B - Constitution of India - Article 20 - Quashing of Criminal proceedings - Seeking cancellation of non-bailable warrants - Proclaimed Offender.
Finding of the Court:
Petitioner had joined investigation and was not absconding and that petitioner according to Investigating Agency did not give requisite desired answers to Investigating Agency, which can be no ground per se for issuance of non-bailable warrants against applicant in as much as every accused is entitled to right to silence to prevent self-incrimination in terms.
Result: Petition is disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The petitioner vide the present petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 05.01.2021 as well as the non-bailable warrants issued against him vide order dated 05.01.2021 by the Court of the learned CMM, PHC in FIR No.147/2020, PS EOW, under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whilst seeking quashing of order dated 02.03.2021, vide which the prayer made by the petitioner herein before the learned trial Court seeking cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued vide order dated 05.01.2021 was declined. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of an order dated 03.03.2021 of the learned CMM, PHC along with the process under Section 82 of the Cr.PC, 1973 issued against the petitioner in the said FIR by the learned trial Court.
2. At the outset, it is essential to observe that as regards the prayer made by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated vide order dated 03.03.2021, under Section 82 of the Cr.PC, 1973 in as much as the FIR in the instant case is registered under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the said provisions of law sought to be invoked by the Investigating Agency do not fall within the ambit of Section 82(4) of the Cr.PC, 1973 and thus the applicant cannot be declared a Proclaimed Offender thereunder in view of the verdict of this Court in in Manoj Tandon Vs. State in Crl.M.C.1961/2020, dated 25.11.2020 whereby there is a reference made to the verdict of this Court in Sanjay Bhandari vs. State in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.223/2018, a verdict dated 31.07.2018, the verdict of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Rishabh Sethi vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in Petition No.5767/2017.
3. In view thereof, the order dated 03.03.2021 of the learned trial Court directing the issuance of process under Section 82 of the Cr.PC, 1973 against the petitioner in FIR No.147/2020, PS EOW, under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed.
4. The petitioner vide the present petition has submitted that the FIR in question is maliciously instituted with motivated reasons to extort the petitioner though the matter relates to a civil commercial dispute and that arbitration proceedings in relation to the dispute are also pending. The FIR in the instant case has been lodged on the complaint of Mr. Anuj Tyagi, Authorized Representative of M/s Saya Cementation Ltd. wherein the complainant stated that Mr. Amit Mavi, Director of M/s Alisha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Baya Weaver Ltd. had informed them that he was developing a project in Sector-129, Jaypee Greens Wish Town, Noida, UP in the name and style of ‘Oh My God’ but that he had been unable to complete the project which had been launched in the year 2013 and that till that time not more than 5% of the work including the structure had been done at the site and thus Mr. Amit Mavi proposed to transfer the shareholding of these two companies to the complainant company. A sum of Rs.350 crores was taken by the complainant as a loan from India Infoline Finance Ltd. (IIFL) and the Share Purchase Agreement dated 30.03.2020 was executed between the complainant and the accused for a total consideration of Rs.3.13 crores and the demand drafts of Rs.11.58 crores towards settlement of various litigations against Amit Mavi.
5. It has been submitted through the status report that has been submitted on behalf of the State that the given amount was paid by the complainant to the accused and after receipt of the same, a further payment of Rs.5.31 crores was made in lieu of various outstanding payments which was not part of the share holder agreement but in the interest of the project the complainant made additional payment to secure the original signed copies of various documents which Mr. Amit Mavi was required to deliver as Share Purchase Agreement, transfer slip of Demat share, transfer certificate of Alisa share, Transfer Deed of Bayaweaver Ltd. and receipts of the amount so paid in original but the acc
SupremeToday
The competence of the Magistrate to issue warrants of arrest and the importance of securing the presence of the accused for interrogation during the course of investigation.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner and must be supported by specific reasons to protect individual liberties under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued routinely; courts must provide adequate reasoning and evidence to justify such action, ensuring individual liberty is not curtailed without necessity.
Non-bailable warrants must not be issued routinely and require specific judicial justification to protect individual liberties as mandated by Article 21.
Non-bailable warrants cannot be issued in a routine manner; courts must ensure specific, reasoned justification for their necessity to protect individual liberties.
Non-bailable warrants should not be issued routinely and must be justified with specific reasons, emphasizing the balance between individual rights and public interest.
Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants requires specific justifications and must not occur routinely; individual liberty should be prioritized unless necessitated by compelling circumstances.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Magistrate to issue arrest warrants during the investigation and the duty to monitor the investigation to ensure fair trial a....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.