Full Text
CRLM.C 2621/2012
Date of Order: December 22"^*, 2017 KANWAR SAIN GUPTA Petitioner
Through Mr.Sushil Bajaj, Ms.Aasifa Sheikh, Advocates.
NCT OF DELin^&.AT^.^.,, Respondent Throiiglfe4lu-Ms|K&^^ DhaliajfAlditional Public
Prosecutor for the State.A I i ii ] JMrMadhur Arora, Advocate for
' U i?l UiLiiJl XT^ O j'i P.S.TEJI {III ^respondent No.2. t /'•xis--'
\ A'.;'? '-fli X'h ..P--;- / 'BLE M#>#isflGE P.STEJI
JUDGMENT
1. The present pMtioh~unS6f"S. 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh. Kanwar Sain Gupta for quashing of FIR No. 185/2010, under Section 406/420/467/468/471/120-B IPG registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi on the basis of a settlement deed executed between the petitioner and respondent No.2 namely, Sh.Lokesh Gupta.
2. The factual matrix of the present case is that the FIR of the present case was registered on the basis of a complaint made by CRL M.C 2621/2012 2017:DHC:8263 r V the complainant/respondent no.2 Lokesh Chand Gupta to the effect that on the inducement of Kanwar Sain Gupta, he started a real estate business and incorporated three companies. It was alleged that the complainant and his wife were holding 30% share in three companies, namely, M/s. KBL Estates Pvt. Ltd, M/s KBL Developers Ltd. and M/s KBL Enterprises Ltd., whereas 40% shares and 30% shares in the said companies were held by accused Kanwar Sain Gupta and one Bhushan Mangala respectively. 30% shares of the complainant were transferred by accused Kanwar^^ Gupta-in favour of Ved Prakash,,f' Sheel Chand, Amit Gupta, Kfaman Kumar and Kanwar Sain Gupta & Sons (HUF)f It^Was alleg^^||^Jthe|^^plairiah^^^ resign from •V the directprshjp' of those''companies'''But the accufed; Kanwar Sain Gupta filed the forged resignation letters of the compkihant with the y TH"' "i'' K of M/s KBL Developers KBL Estates Pvt. Ltd. were transferred 'by acciii^'Kanwa^ one Sandeep Jain through sale deed' dated 07.03,2008. alleged that forged minutes of in^etin^sffdsoluti'o and books of accounts in respect of those c~6mpanies were manipulated by Kanwar Sain Gupta. It was alleged that the accused persons caused loss to the tune ofcrores of rupees to the complainant.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR in question and all the consequential proceedings arising from it on the basis of compromise. It is submitted that a deed of settlement dated 13.03.2012 was entered into between the parties whereby the parties agreed to withdraw all the pending litigations CRLM.C 2621/2012 _. Page 2 of[4] between them. The petitioner, as per the settlement, has paid the requisite amount to the respondent no.2. Along with the petition, affidavits of the petitioner and respondent no.2 have been filed to claim that no dispute between the parties remain and both the parties have agreed to withdrawall the pending litigationsbetweenthem.
4. After having served with the notice of the petition, the respondent no.2 appeared in the Court and opposed the present petition and sought dismissal ofthe same.
5. Learned;AdditionaL PP for.the- State has also opposed the quashing of the- FIR'in "question on the ground that apart from the present petitioner7accusei'^^;;reveraffoth6ri accuse[4]:are.;also involved in the present cpe and the1jw5|sr^^ hi^^lready filed the charge sheet in the Court. twks(,mijher submitted that the matter is at the stage 'pfframing charge befolrelth^ trial court.
6. So far as the ofground for quashing the FIR is conceiiied^ent|riri^ihto|coj^^ is ofno value in view'-bf-'^l^^suBmission made-by the;;IState to the effect that there are several oth^:'act|isfedifi'ersd case, apart from the petitioner and the charge~sh'eet has already been filed. ^ 7. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances and the fact that there is involvement of several other accused persons, charge sheet has already been filed and the matter is fixed before the trial court for consideration of charge, no ground is made out to quash the FIR in question. The present petition is accordingly disposed of
8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to raise the contentions made in the present petition before the trial court at the CRL M.C 2621/2012 J ctime of consideration of charge. It is made clear that the observations made above shall not have any bearing upon the trial court while consideration of charge.
9. Thepresent petition is disposed of accordingly.
DECEMBER 22, 2017 dd //•. 'v i'/ ' i •>-. • i.;i~- < i 'A CRLM.C 2621/2012 \r '. V. v-'rjt> > •r ic-i (P.p.TH JUDG /'S, No. "f% 'V', •v:- \';• !t