Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 267
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
ATS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-3729/2023
The court cannot quash an FIR at the initial stage of investigation, and the investigation should be allowed to proceed to ascertain the truth, unless it is evident that no cognizable offence is made out.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure - Sections 406/420/120B IPC - Quashing of FIR
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are accused in an FIR registered for offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have filed petitions seeking quashing of the FIR. The FIR was registered based on a complaint filed by the respondents, who had invested in a real estate project developed by the accused companies. The complainants allege that the accused persons had induced them to invest in the project by presenting an overly optimistic picture and a buy-back scheme, but later refused to honor the agreements and dishonored the post-dated cheques issued to the complainants.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of power to quash FIRs, held that the investigation in the present case is at its initial stage and the police had registered the FIR after a preliminary inquiry, as prima facie cognizable offences appeared to have been committed by the accused persons. The court observed that the records reveal that the accused persons were holding crucial positions in the companies in question and had prima facie induced the complainants to invest in the project with a buy-back option, but later alienated the units and refused to honor the agreements. The court held that at this stage, it cannot be ascertained whether there was an intention to dupe the complainants, and the investigation should be allowed to proceed to bring out the truth.
Issues: Whether the FIR registered against the petitioners should be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigation is at a nascent stage, and without investigation, it cannot be ascertained whether the accused persons had the intention to dupe the complainants. The court observed that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the exercise of power to quash FIRs suggest that the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage, and the investigation should be allowed to proceed to bring out the truth.
Final Decision: The petitions seeking quashing of the FIR are dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of W.P.(CRL) 3729/2023 and W.P.(CRL) 3740/2023 as the issue in question in both the petitions is common and these petitions arise out of same facts and circumstances, the petitioners in these two petitions are co- accused in the same FIR, and the reliefs sought in both the petitions are also identical.
2. The petitioners, by way of these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), seek quashing of FIR No. 82/2023, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi for offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and the proceedings arising there from.
3. Factual backdrop of the case is that a complaint was lodged by the complainants i.e. respondent no. 2 to 7, against the following accused persons: (i) M/s ATS Infrastructure Limited (accused no. 1), (ii) Domus Greens Private Limited (accused no. 2), (iii) Sh. Getamber Anand (accused no. 3), (iv) Sh. Puneet Arora (accused no. 4), (v) Sh. Udaivir Anand (accused no. 5), (vi) Sh. Sanjay Sethi (accused no. 6), and (vii) Ms. Bani G. Anand (accused no. 7). It is alleged that the accused no. 1 and 2 are both real-estate companies, and accused no. 3 who is the Director in accused no. 1 and 2, alongwith accused no. 5 and 7 was looking for people to invest money in one of its project namely „ATS Dolce‟ located in Sector Zeta-01, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, being constructed and developed by accused no. 2 company. It is alleged that in the year 2018, accused no. 3, in collusion with other directors of Domus Greens Private Limited, had induced the complainants to invest in a project by presenting an overly optimistic picture of the project‟s prospects and by offering a Buy Back Scheme. The scheme promised to repurchase the apartments after a certain period of time at a stipulated price. It is alleged that the complainants were fraudulently induced to invest their money in ATS Infrastructure Limited and Domus Greens Private Limited. As alleged, the accused persons had shown the complainants a specimen Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement to Sell and Purchase, which included explicit liability for the encashment of post-dated cheques. Based on these representations, the complainants had invested substantial amounts in the project, resulting in the allotment of units to them. It is further alleged that accused no. 3, acting as an Authorized Signatory for both ATS Infrastructure Limited and Domus Greens Private Limited, had issued the allotment letters and executed the Memorandum of Understandings and Agreement to Sell and Purchase for the Buy Back Scheme. It is alleged that accused no. 3, Mr. Getamber Anand, and his co-conspirators, accused no. 5, Mr. Udaivir Anand, and accused no. 7, Ms. Bani G. Anand, had collected money on behalf of Domus Greens Private Limited and had issued post-dated cheques on behalf of ATS Infrastructure Limited. As alleged, the Agreements clearly stated that post-dated cheques signed by accused no. 3 would be honored upon presentation. The complainants further alleged that despite multiple extensions sought unilaterally by the accused for the „Holding Period‟, the complainants complied with the extensions and handed over previously issued cheques in exchange for new post-dated cheques. However, before these cheques were to be encashed, the accused persons had requested the complainants not to deposit them, citing financial instability due to Covid-19, and had promised to issue fresh cheques, which never happened. When the complainants had eventually deposited the post-dated cheques, they had got dishonored due to account blocks, frozen accounts, or insufficient funds. It is alleged that the accused persons had then refused to honor the Agreement, thereby causing the complainants a significant financial loss. The complainants allege that a
