Full Text
Translation output
26# S-
* IN THN HIGII COURT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHtr
+ w.P. (clu.) 934120rr
VED PRAKASH ..... Petitioner fhrough: Mr. Apurb Lal and Ms. Kumari Alka, Advocates.
VETSUS
GOVT. OI" NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: M"r. A.S. f'uisem Shimray, Advocatc for Ms. Meera Rhatia, Additionai
Standing Counsel for the State with
Inspector Rajeev Bhardwaj, PS Delhi
Canlt.
Mr. Kuldeep Mansukhani, Advocatc for the Complainanl.
* IN THN HIGII COURT OF DELIII AT NEW DELHtr
+ w.P. (clu.) 934120rr
VED PRAKASH ..... Petitioner fhrough: Mr. Apurb Lal and Ms. Kumari Alka, Advocates.
VETSUS
GOVT. OI" NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: M"r. A.S. f'uisem Shimray, Advocatc for Ms. Meera Rhatia, Additionai
Standing Counsel for the State with
Inspector Rajeev Bhardwaj, PS Delhi
Canlt.
Mr. Kuldeep Mansukhani, Advocatc for the Complainanl.
CORAM:
IION'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
'h 04.07.2017 grl.
M.A. No. 741U20
Allowed, s,-rbject to all just exccptions.
By this petition the .Petitioner seeks quashing of F'IR No. 153/2003 undcr Sections 4061409142011208IPC rcgistered at PS Delhi Cantt and the proceeclings arising therefrorn pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan
Magislrate, Mr. Sumit Das, Dwarka Ccud:s, New Delhi.
W.P. (CRI) gs4/2011 Page' 1 oJ 5
2011:DHC:17952
Briefly the facts of the case are that in the year 1976 IWs Punjab
Wireless System Ltd. (PUNV/IRE) was incorporated. In I)ecember, 1994 the Petitioner was appointed as the Board of Directors at fixed salaries aud other perks. Subsequently in the year 1996-98 it floated an issue of non- comrnutable debentures to the tune of 100 crores. On 27th April, 2000
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and I-Iaryana passed an order for liquidation of cornpany. During the pendency of the liquidation proceedings, PSil)C on thc inquiry report subrnitted by the Pricewater House ordered for the lodging of FIR and other proceedings. On 2nd August, 200I a cornplaint against the colnpany was lodged before PS Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. On the basis of the aforesaid cornplaint, FIR No. 23612001 under Section 4i8 iPC was registcred. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5166612001 was filecl by Punjab Wireless System Ernployees Union before the I-Iigh Couit of
Punjab and I{aryana for impartial investigations by independcnt agency with regard to the embezzlement and conuption in the accused company. This pctition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana I{igh Court vide its order dated 21't December, 200L Against the said
'h 04.07.2017 grl.
M.A. No. 741U20
Allowed, s,-rbject to all just exccptions.
By this petition the .Petitioner seeks quashing of F'IR No. 153/2003 undcr Sections 4061409142011208IPC rcgistered at PS Delhi Cantt and the proceeclings arising therefrorn pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan
Magislrate, Mr. Sumit Das, Dwarka Ccud:s, New Delhi.
W.P. (CRI) gs4/2011 Page' 1 oJ 5
2011:DHC:17952
Briefly the facts of the case are that in the year 1976 IWs Punjab
Wireless System Ltd. (PUNV/IRE) was incorporated. In I)ecember, 1994 the Petitioner was appointed as the Board of Directors at fixed salaries aud other perks. Subsequently in the year 1996-98 it floated an issue of non- comrnutable debentures to the tune of 100 crores. On 27th April, 2000
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and I-Iaryana passed an order for liquidation of cornpany. During the pendency of the liquidation proceedings, PSil)C on thc inquiry report subrnitted by the Pricewater House ordered for the lodging of FIR and other proceedings. On 2nd August, 200I a cornplaint against the colnpany was lodged before PS Phase-I, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. On the basis of the aforesaid cornplaint, FIR No. 23612001 under Section 4i8 iPC was registcred. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5166612001 was filecl by Punjab Wireless System Ernployees Union before the I-Iigh Couit of
Punjab and I{aryana for impartial investigations by independcnt agency with regard to the embezzlement and conuption in the accused company. This pctition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana I{igh Court vide its order dated 21't December, 200L Against the said
ORDER
and order
SLP was preferred which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order datecl 9tr'May, 2002 with a direction that the investigation with w.P. (cRL) 9s4/2011 Puge 2 oJ' 5 regard to embezzlemerfl and corruption in the company be handed over to
CdI Uy the State of Punjab. Thereafter in 2003 Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Additionai
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courls, New Delhi against the oompany and various persons including the Petitioner. Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order clated 3'd May, 2003 directed for registration of FIR. On the basis of aforesaid order Itespondent No. 2 registered the aforementioned FIR. On 20'h March, 2008 non-bailable warrants against the Petitioner were issued by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate.
Thc primary contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner was i.hat there were complaints trled against the Petitioner and other accttsed r-egarding embezzlement of funds and conuption by \zlls PIINWIRE and thc
FIon'ble Supreme Courl vide its order dated 9tl'May, 2002 in SLP (Crl.) No'
58312002 directed that the matter be transferred for investigation to the CIII r.vith regarcl to the alleged embezzlement. On the strength of this order learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct registration of IrlR against the Petitioner.
A perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl shows that it
W.P. (CRL) 934/2011 q was conceming with the complaints which were pending before it and did not debar any future complaint for being entertained by the Courts. Fur-ther the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct CBI to register FIR. Thus I find no infimity in the order dated 3'd May, 2003 passed by the learned ACMM in Complaint Case No. 1739 12003 titled as IAI'-GIS vs. \zVs Punjab Wireless
Systems Ltd. as the same is based on a colnplaint filed by Itespondent No. 3, that is, Indian Air force Group Insurance Society, who was not the
Complainant earlier, for a separate cause of action. Respondent No.3 in the conplaint filed has alleged that despite the allotment of the debentures on
30tr' September, 1997 the accused company did not issue any debenture certificate to them stating that the company did not create a charge in favour of the debenture holder and before the redemption of debentures, the company went into liquidation & showed its inability to issue the same.
Leaned counsel for the Petitioner fur1her agitates that the Courl at
Dclhi had no jruisdiction to direct registration of FIR and try the sarne. Thc
FIR has been registered and the investigation is going on. In terms of the dccision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rn Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) and another, 1999 (S) SCC 728 the issue whether the Court at
Delhi has jurisdiction to try the case or not, will be decided pursuant to the w.P. (cRL) 9s4/2011 Page 4 oJ'5
{ investigation. In case it is found that tire Court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to try the offence, the matter will be transfered to the competent Couft as held by the Hon'ble Suprerne Couft.
In thc present petition there is no prayer for transfer of the investigation to the CBI and no further issue has been agitated. I find no l'eason to quash the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
Petition and application are dismissed. l,,M4,fL-
" MUKTA GUPTA, .I.
JULY 04,2011 tvn'
Page 5 oJ 5 w.P. (cRL) 934/2011
SLP was preferred which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order datecl 9tr'May, 2002 with a direction that the investigation with w.P. (cRL) 9s4/2011 Puge 2 oJ' 5 regard to embezzlemerfl and corruption in the company be handed over to
CdI Uy the State of Punjab. Thereafter in 2003 Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Additionai
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courls, New Delhi against the oompany and various persons including the Petitioner. Learned
Metropolitan Magistrate vide its order clated 3'd May, 2003 directed for registration of FIR. On the basis of aforesaid order Itespondent No. 2 registered the aforementioned FIR. On 20'h March, 2008 non-bailable warrants against the Petitioner were issued by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate.
Thc primary contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner was i.hat there were complaints trled against the Petitioner and other accttsed r-egarding embezzlement of funds and conuption by \zlls PIINWIRE and thc
FIon'ble Supreme Courl vide its order dated 9tl'May, 2002 in SLP (Crl.) No'
58312002 directed that the matter be transferred for investigation to the CIII r.vith regarcl to the alleged embezzlement. On the strength of this order learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to direct registration of IrlR against the Petitioner.
A perusal of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Courl shows that it
W.P. (CRL) 934/2011 q was conceming with the complaints which were pending before it and did not debar any future complaint for being entertained by the Courts. Fur-ther the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct CBI to register FIR. Thus I find no infimity in the order dated 3'd May, 2003 passed by the learned ACMM in Complaint Case No. 1739 12003 titled as IAI'-GIS vs. \zVs Punjab Wireless
Systems Ltd. as the same is based on a colnplaint filed by Itespondent No. 3, that is, Indian Air force Group Insurance Society, who was not the
Complainant earlier, for a separate cause of action. Respondent No.3 in the conplaint filed has alleged that despite the allotment of the debentures on
30tr' September, 1997 the accused company did not issue any debenture certificate to them stating that the company did not create a charge in favour of the debenture holder and before the redemption of debentures, the company went into liquidation & showed its inability to issue the same.
Leaned counsel for the Petitioner fur1her agitates that the Courl at
Dclhi had no jruisdiction to direct registration of FIR and try the sarne. Thc
FIR has been registered and the investigation is going on. In terms of the dccision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rn Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) and another, 1999 (S) SCC 728 the issue whether the Court at
Delhi has jurisdiction to try the case or not, will be decided pursuant to the w.P. (cRL) 9s4/2011 Page 4 oJ'5
{ investigation. In case it is found that tire Court at Delhi has no jurisdiction to try the offence, the matter will be transfered to the competent Couft as held by the Hon'ble Suprerne Couft.
In thc present petition there is no prayer for transfer of the investigation to the CBI and no further issue has been agitated. I find no l'eason to quash the FIR and the proceedings pursuant thereto.
Petition and application are dismissed. l,,M4,fL-
" MUKTA GUPTA, .I.
JULY 04,2011 tvn'
Page 5 oJ 5 w.P. (cRL) 934/2011