Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2305
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Manoj Misra, Suresh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Puja Quench Distributors Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 9628 of 2019
Decided On : 01-05-2019
For the Appellant : Bharat Kishore Srivastava and Vimal Dharm Yadav
For the Respondent: A.G.A. and Abhishek Srivastava
Headnote:
Forgery - Quashing of FIR - Sections 420, 407, 468, 471, 406 and 120B, I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the nature and gravity of the non-compoundable offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 and 120B, I.P.C. and the impact of financial fraud on society. The judgment highlighted the legal principles established in Gian Singh's case and subsequent decisions, emphasizing that offences with societal impact cannot be quashed based on private settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petition sought quashing of an FIR related to forgery and fraud in obtaining a loan from a finance company by setting up forged documents. The petitioners had entered into a settlement with the finance company after the FIR was lodged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the act of defrauding a public limited finance company by setting up forged papers had the potential to affect the society at large. Therefore, the criminal case could not be quashed based on the settlement or compromise between the parties.
Issues: The court analyzed whether the transaction had a larger ramification that affected the society at large and whether the FIR could be quashed based on a private settlement between the borrower and the creditor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles established in Gian Singh's case and subsequent decisions, emphasizing that offences with societal impact cannot be quashed based on private settlement.
Final Decision: The petition to quash the FIR and the consequential investigation was dismissed, and the court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations in the FIR.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Misra, Suresh Kumar Gupta, JJ.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Deepak Mishra, the learned A.G.A., for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Sri Abhishek Srivastava for the respondent No. 4; and have perused the record.
2. The instant petition seeks quashing of the first information report (in short F.I.R.) dated 20.10.2015 which has been lodged at P.S. Kavi Nagar, District- Ghaziabad as Case Crime No. 1343 of 2015, under Sections 420, 407, 468, 471, 406 and 120B, I.P.C.
3. The impugned first information report has been lodged by an authorized representative of Edelweiss Housing Finance Ltd. (respondent No. 4) against the petitioners and one Smt. Geeta Devi (non-petitioner).
4. The allegations in the first information report are : that Edelweiss Housing Finance Ltd. (for short informant-company) is a registered company doing business in financing, housing loans, etc.; that in the month of December, 2012/January, 2013, the accused-petitioners, some of whom are directors in M/s. Pooja Quench Distributors India Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner No. 1), applied to the-informant-company for a housing loan to purchase a property i.e., House No. KF 41, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad by creation of mortgage thereon; that in connection therewith, property papers of the aforementioned property, which was stated to be owned by Geeta Devi (co-accused-non-petitioner), were shown to the informant-company to indicate that the said property was allotted and leased to Devendra Kumar Jain (allottee) by Improvement Trust (currently Ghaziabad Development Authority), vide lease deed dated 2.2.1977, which was assigned to Smt. Geeta Devi, vide instrument dated 19.7.1978, following which, Geeta Devi obtained freehold rights from Ghaziabad Development Authority vide instrument dated 22.3.2005; that by disclosing that the said property has been purchased by the petitioners from Geeta Devi, vide sale-deed dated 8.3.2013, and by depositing papers thereof, loan of Rs. 3 crores, to finance the purchase, was obtained from the informant-company, which was disbursed by the informant-company by issuing bank draft of Rs. 3 crores in favour of Geeta Devi; that after paying few installments, in between April, 2013 and October, 2013, the accused-petitioners defaulted in payment of the installments; that, consequently, the informant-company tried to contact the borrowers and when it failed in its efforts, an officer of the informant-company was deputed for enquiry/inspection, whereupon, it was found that the property wore locks of I.D.B.I. Bank; that, when a detailed enquiry was made, it was found that the said property had been purchased by a person named Rajesh Singh, who had borrowed loan from I.D.B.I. Bank against mortgage of the property and, as he had defaulted in repayment of the loan, the I.D.B.I. Bank had taken possession thereof; that upon further enquiry, it was found that the purchaser company (M/s. Puja Quench Distributors Pvt. Ltd-petitioner No. 1) through its Director (Sunder Singh-petitioner No. 2) and other co-purchasers, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Singh (petitioner No. 3) and Rajendra Kumar (petitioner No. 4) for the purpose of obtaining loan facility had set up an impostor of Geeta Devi as also fabricated papers to show execution of sale-deed in their favour. Thus, in pith and substance, the allegations in the impugned first information report are that by setting up forged and fabricated documents, loan was obtained from a finance company with an intent to defraud the finance company.
5. The petitioners have not disputed that the sale-deed, which was deposited with the informant, was a forged and fabricated document and that it was executed by an impostor of Geeta Devi. Rather, the case of the petitioners is that they are innocent and they had no reason to suspect that their vendor is an impostor of Geeta Devi. In that regard, it would be apposite to reproduce paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the writ petition, which are extracted below:
"13. Th
