JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.7 dated 15.01.2025 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station IT City, Mohali, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that husband of the petitioner is a promoter of WTC, Noida Development Company Private Limited (for short 'WTC'). In the year 2015, the said company launched a commercial project in Mohali namely WTC Chandigarh and in the year 2022, complainants-respondents No.2 & 3 were allured to invest an amount of Rs.50,23,203/- in the same. The units hence purchased by respondents No.2 & 3 were scheduled to be handed over by June, 2023. However, they were unable to take possession of the same, as the construction never picked pace, in spite of multiple re-assurances. A report dated 07.12.2022 prepared by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (for short 'SFIO'), which was presented before National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, also states that the accused company has collected about Rs.423 crores from 1162 clients. However, instead of putting it towards construction of the real estate project, as promised, they have siphoned off Rs.77 crores. In fact, in April, 2023, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short 'GMADA') had to revoke the land allotment, as the accused company had an overdue of Rs.103 crores. As such, the accused company has defrauded respondents No.2 & 3 and all its other clients.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been wrongly arraigned as an accused in FIR (supra). Even if the case of the prosecution is presumed to be correct, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has never been a Director or even a shareholder in the accused company. In fact, neither she has been named in the FIR (supra) nor any specific allegation has been levelled against her. Further, nowhere it has been alleged that the petitioner deceived respondents No.2 & 3 or dishonestly induced them to part with their money, as she did not have any role in the day to day functioning of the accused company. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is a reputed architect, who is involved with many prestigious projects.

4. Further still, a perusal of the investigation report submitted by SFIO would indicate that the petitioner was held to be not complicit in the alleged occurrence. The issue primarily is civil in nature, which has been given a criminal colour and the petitioner has only been arraigned as an accused to twist arm of her husband-Ashish Bhalla. Pertinently, the petitioner cannot be held to be vicariously liable in the present case, especially when the petitioner is neither a Director nor an owner in the accused company. Further, the unimpeachable and sterling evidence in the shape of relevant corporate record pertaining to management of WTC, as extracted from the records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, is available on record as Annexure P-2 and bare perusal of the same would establish that the petitioner has never held any directorship or managerial position in WTC. Her firm namely Abaxial Design Pvt. Ltd. is a separate legal entity and has no connection with WTC. As such, neither the petitioner nor her firm can be held responsible for any wrongdoings, that may have been committed by WTC. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2015 (1) SCALE 140. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 and contends that the present dispute is civil in nature and is being converted into a criminal offence with malicious intentions.

5. Pertinently, in Vinay Tyagi Vs