Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
EXCLUSIVE MOTORS PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU Of INVESTIGATION – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 1413/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Karan Bharihok
For the Respondents: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, Ms. Mehak Arora
The order for a Demand Draft under Section 91 Cr.P.C is unauthorized as it pertains to recovery, not production of existing documents.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Jurisdiction of police to recover money - The Order dated 22.07.2021 sought to be impugned was to furnish a Demand Draft by the petitioner - Court held that taking recovery of money through Section 91 is unauthorized, it pertains only to production of documents or things that exist - The Order was beyond jurisdiction and set aside. (Paras 8, 30, 32)
(B) Jurisdiction under Section 91 Cr.P.C - The Court emphasized that Section 91 Cr.P.C. does not grant powers for the police or any officer to order conversion of cash into another form. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The case involves a dispute between an authorized car dealer and a company regarding the payment for an imported luxury car. The petitioner forfeited an advance amount when the buyer failed to make the balance payment. Subsequently, a demand was raised by the CBI claiming the sum to be proceeds of crime.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the order for a Demand Draft was beyond jurisdiction as it did not pertain to existing documents or things subject to Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Issues: Whether the CBI had jurisdiction to order the production of a Demand Draft under Section 91 Cr.P.C, and whether this order could be construed as recovery of money.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that Section 91 is intended to facilitate the investigation and not the seizure of property which is not in the form of documents. Any recovery order must align with the provisions of the law. (Paras 30, 31)
Result: The impugned Order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of petitioner's background and transaction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. argument on jurisdiction regarding recovery of funds. (Para 8 , 10 , 19) |
| 3. court's ruling on applicability of section 91 cr.p.c. (Para 30 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner/ M/s Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. to impugn the Order dated 22.07.2021 under Section 91 Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring him to furnish a Demand Draft of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the name of Respondent no. 1/Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. Briefly stated, Petitioner Company is an authorised dealer of Bentley Motors Ltd., United Kingdom („Bentley UK‟) in India. It‟s business operations involve the importation of luxury cars against confirmed bookings by buyers, from the United Kingdom to India,.
3. In 2013, on the request of Mr. Abhishek Motewar, representative of Respondent no. 3/ M/s Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd, Petitioner issued a Proforma Invoice for „Bentley Mulsanne’ 01.10.2013 offering a special price of Rs. 6,06,00,000/- on agreed terms and conditions.
4. Respondent no. 3 agreed to buy the said car on the terms and conditions of the Proforma Invoice and accordingly, made an advance payment of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Petitioner. Consequently, Petitioner imported the car from Bentley UK, which was duly delivered to the Petitioner. However, Respondent no. 3 failed to make the balance payment of Rs.5,56,00,000/- despite the email dated 12.11.2013 and a follow up email dated 21.11.2013 sent by the Petitioner for payment and forfeiture of the advance payment in case of non-payment of the balance amount. Bentley UK also repeatedly sought the full payment from the Petitioner for the car. Respondent no. 3 failed to comply and the Petitioner was left to bear the custom duty and other related charges as reflected in the Bill of Lading dated 12.04.2014. The Petitioner forfeited the advance non-refundable payment of Rs. 50 Lacs, in accordance with Clause 7 of the Proforma Invoice dated 01.10.2013.
5. Petitioner, then after more than 2 years, sold the car for a sum of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- inclusive of applicable taxes and duties, as against the original agreed price of Rs. 6,06,00,000/-, evidencing deficient realisation of the basic sale price of the car.
6. Over the course of the next few years, Respondent No.1/CBI started investigation into the affairs of Respondent No.3, M/s Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Ltd. Owing to such failed transaction between the parties and forfeiture of the non-refundable amount by the Petitioner. During the investigations, Notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued by the CBI to the Petitioner. Between 22.01.2020 and 13.02.2020, various email exchanges took place between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1and the Petitioner provided to the Respondent No.1 with all relevant information and documents, as sought. Petitioner again received a Notice dated 13.02.2020 under Section 160 Cr.P.C. from Respondent No.1 seeking presence of the Petitioner to answer some further questions related to the failed transaction between the Petitioner and Respondent No.3.
7. Thereafter, CBI during the investigation against Respondent No.3., sought a Demand Draft of Rs. 50 Lacs in the name of Respondent No. 1, vide Order dated 22.07.2021 under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
8. This Order dated 22.07.2021 is sought to be challenged on the ground that Respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction under Section 91 Cr.P.C. to seek recovery of money from the Petitioner. The money was rightly forfeited by the Petitioner. This recovery of amount by way of Bank draft is not a “document” or “other thing” within the meaning of Section 91 , Cr.P.C. and hence, is not liable to be produced in a Notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
9. Moreover, Petitioner was not given an opportunity to reply before passing this direction which seeks t
