The main legal point established in the judgment is that the essential elements of cheating and forgery, including dishonesty and fraudulent intent, must be satisfied for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC. The court also highlighted the significance of the recent award in favor of the Complainant under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

1. The facts, in brief, as evident from material on record as well as from submissions raised on behalf of rival parties are that, the Complainant and his wife have commercial relationship with accused persons so much that the Complainant was appointed as a Legal Advisor of the Company, namely, Culture Home Developer Pvt. Ltd., on remuneration. Further, wife of Complainant has entered a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “MOU/Agreement”) for adjusting the amount paid by Complainant and his wife towards allotment of flats as well as share.

2. It appears that relationship between parties became soar and a dispute arose to the extent that payment of remuneration of Complainant was discontinued as well as condition of MOU/Agreement were allegedly not complied with and this led to appointment of an Arbitrator in terms of aforesaid agreement wherein an interim order was also passed and recently the Arbitrator has pronounced award dated 27.11.2021 in favour of Complainant and his wife. The said award is challenged by accused persons under the provisions of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1996”).

3. During pendency of arbitration proceedings the Complainant filed a First Information Report against accused persons (applicants herein in both applications), for allegedly committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC.

4. The contents of First Information Report are very lengthy, however, crux is that, very initiation of relationship between parties was based on dishonesty and accused persons allegedly, in order to deceive the Complainant and his wife, induces them to invest money and it was part of cheating that Complainant was appointed as a Legal Advisor to the Company as well as a MOU/Agreement was executed to show that all the transactions were bona fide. In the First Information Report there are further allegations that accused persons have committed forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating and forgery for using a genuine document, which has reason to believe to be forged.

5. Sri Sujit Kumar, learned counsel for applicants in both the applications, has vehemently argued that Complainant and his wife has already taken appropriate remedy under Act, 1996 and an award has been passed in their favour, though challenged under Section 34 of Act, 1996. The document of retainership as well as MOU/Agreement are not in dispute. The allegations of cheating or forgery are not based on any evidence. The Complainant side, with their open eyes, have entered not only into an agreement but also acted as a Legal Advisor of Company for which Complainant was paid also. Only in order to put pressure on accused/applicants the criminal proceedings were initiated and First Information Report was lodged wherein after investigation charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has also been taken. The investigation was not fair and in absence of ingredients of aforesaid offences charge sheet was filed and without applying judicial mind, the Trial Court has taken cognizance for all the above referred alleged offences. It is a purely civil dispute which has been given criminal colour and criminal proceedings are initiated only after the proceedings initiated by Complainant under Act, 1996, therefore, the criminal proceedings as well as cognizance order are liable to be set aside.

6. The above submissions are vehemently opposed by Sri Paritosh Malviya, learned A.G.A. and Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, Advocate for Opposite Party No. 2. They submitted that there might be some overlapping of facts but only on the ground that Complainant had availed remedy under Act, 1996 the First Information Report lodged for committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC cannot be quashed, as there is no bar for lodging FIR for cognizable offence. In the criminal proceedings offences are to be proved by prosecution and it was a case of Complai