IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that exoneration in civil nature adjudication does not preclude fresh consideration on the point of charge in criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (`CrPC') assails order dated 17.08.2019 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini, Delhi in C.C. No. 529169/2016, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to discharge respondents no. 2 to 4 in case FIR No. 177/2013 under Sections 420/406/468/471/384 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') registered at PS Economic Offences Wing (District South), New Delhi (`EOW').

Background

2. The case of the petitioner, Sh. Shiv Raj Singh as set out in the FIR registered at his instance is as under:

i. The complaint was filed by the petitioner in his capacity as one of the Directors of M/s Kempty Konstructions Private Limited, stating that 988 shares of the aforesaid company were in his name, and it was alleged that the same got transferred to respondent no.2 because the company secretary Sh. A.K. Popli filed fake/forged documents with the Registrar of Companies (`RoC') misusing the digital signatures of the petitioner in the period November-December 2009.

ii. The petitioner alleged that he neither signed any transfer deed nor did he receive any consideration from respondent no.2 for the alleged transfer of his 998 shares.

iii. It is further alleged that the Petitioner was removed from the post of Director of M/s Kempty Konstruction Pvt. Ltd surreptitiously by respondent no. 2 by the way of filing fake/forged documents with Form 32 and the petitioner did not resign from his position at the company voluntarily.

iv. The petitioner also alleged that respondents no.3 and 4 were appointed Directors of M/s Kempty Konstruction Pvt. Ltd in the year 2005, however they have failed to disclose as to how they were appointed the Directors.

v. Further respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 have also been allotted ten shares of the aforesaid company, however they have failed to disclose as to how were the shares allotted to them.

vi. After investigation chargesheet against respondents no.2 to 4 under Sections 420/406/468/471/384/120B, of the IPC was filed before the learned Trial Court.

3. Based on the aforesaid chargesheet, the learned Trial Court, on the point of charge, observed that the facts mentioned in the chargesheet qua the accused persons were also the subject matter of C.P. No. 104/ND/2011 titled `Shiv Raj Singh Vs. M/s Kemptv Konstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.' before the learned National Company Law Tribunal (`NCLT'), and observed as under:

"It is relevant to mention here that the facts mentioned in the charge sheet qua the accused persons were also the subject matter before the National Companv Law Tribunal, in the matter of Shiv Raj Singh Vs. M/s Kempty Konstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., wherein the Ld. Tribunal held that:

From the pleadings on record, documents relied, and upon hearing arguments addressed by the Ld. Senior counsels, this Bench is of the opinion that the resignation of the petitioner cannot be opined as being fraudulent. His allegations of removal as a Director of the respondent company are also without any legs to stand upon. Form32 along with his resignation letter was duly uploaded with the ROC. It is the easiest of the allegations to deny a document as being forged or the digital signatures being misused by any other person. This has to be seen in conjunction with the other ancillary facts. There is no denial to the execution of the MOU which clearly acknowledges money being received by the petitioner with the understanding that upon failure to return the loan, the respondent no. 2 would be entitled to transfer the same to himself. The petitioner has nowhere denied taking financial assistance nor having executed the MOU. Further, he has not been able to show that he has failed to liquidate the loan. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the transfer of 998 shares was not for valuable consideration received. As per the annual report filed for the year 2007-08, it ha