High Court · 2025 on 08 Jul 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondents, Shri Vimlendu Tripathi along with Sri Deepesh Kumar and Sri Prashant Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash/set-aside the further proceedings as well as the order dated 6.7.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-3rd, District Ghaziabad in complaint case no.4523 of 2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and also the order dated 28.9.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No.169 of 2016. FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The opposite party no.2 is the Managing Director of a Company known as M/s Devidyal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd. (earlier known as “Hindustan Chains Pvt. Ltd.”), which had entered into an agreement with M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (PDL) and M/s Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited (PBPL) for constructing residential flats on the land which belonged to opposite party no.2. The agreement was executed between the parties, which had terms and conditions enumerated in it. It is alleged that the applicant no.1, Sanjeev Kumar Jain was the Managing Director and Authorized Signatory, applicant no.2, Pradeep Jain was the Chairman and applicant no.3, Sandeed Jain was the director of M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited. The day-to-day functioning of M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited was carried out by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Jain and Shri Pawan Gupta as as they were the responsible persons for day to day functioning of the builder Companies (PDL & PBPL).

4. As per the agreement it was the responsibility of the applicants and their company for construction of the residential towers and sale of the same to the prospective buyers and for that it was the responsibility of the applicants and their company to get a ‘No Objection Certificate’ and other permission from all the authorities.

5. After getting all the permissions, the opposite party no.2 entered into an re-agreement known as “Assignment of Development Rights Agreement” on 28.12.2010 with M/s Parsvnath Buildwell Pvt. Ltd along with other companies. With this assignment letter a separate general power of attorney was executed by opposite party no.2 in favour of PBPL and other stakeholders to deal with all the authorities, for development of the project, on behalf of opposite part no.2. This general power of attorney was the part of the assignment agreement.

6. As per the agreement of “Assignment of Development Rights” on the land of opposite party no.2, the sale certificate of the flats was to be executed by opposite party no.2 to the prospective flat owners and the proceeds of the said flats was to be divided into ratio of 81.5% : 18.5% respectively between M/s Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited and opposite party no.2.

7. In this agreement the time given for completion of project was 36 months, which was to end on 28.12.2013, however, there was an extension clause of six months. Even after the completion of this agreed period as well as grace period of six months a very limited work was carried out inspite of time being the essence in the agreement dated 28.12.2010. After the completion of the period when the project was not completed, a legal notice was sent on behalf of opposite party no.2 on 04.08.2014. The relevant paragraph of the notice dated 04.08.2014 is quoted hereunder:- “6. Since the Agreement themselves are cancelled, as a necessary corollary the General Power of Attorney dated 28.12.2010 given for execution of obligations of 2 you M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited and you M/s Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited is also hereby cancelled and revoked”. By this legal notice, General Power of Attorney was revoked.

8. The sanction of the map by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short “GDA”), which was approved on 17.03.2007, expired after five years on 16.03.2012 because the project was not completed in time for which the builders had moved an application on 08.01.2015 requesting for the revalidation of the map, which was rejected by the GDA vide order dated

26.08.2015. The order dated 26.08.2015 is quoted hereunder:- गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:10)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण नि(cid:18)कास पथ, गाजि(cid:4)याबाद। निद(cid:10)ांक: पत्रांक से(cid:18)ा में, श्री सं(cid:4)ी(cid:18) (cid:4)ै(cid:10) (अधि(cid:15)कृत हस्ताक्षरी) मैं निहन्दुस्ता(cid:10) चेन्स प्रा०लि.० "पार्श्व1(cid:10)ाथ एक्(cid:4)ोनि5का 149, (cid:4)ी०डी०रोड अथ1., गाजि(cid:4)याबाद। नि(cid:18)षय:-मा(cid:10)धिचत्र सं0 1169/टी.एम.ए./(cid:4)ी.एच./2006 निद(cid:10)ांक 15.2.07 के ग्राम अथ1.ा एक्(cid:4)ोनि5का के सम्बन्(cid:15) में। कृपया उपरोक्त नि(cid:18)षयक आपके पत्र निद(cid:10)ांक 3.7.15 के सम्बन्(cid:15) में सूधिचत कर(cid:10)ा है निक प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में नि(cid:18)धि(cid:15)क राय के अ(cid:10)ुसार एसाइन्मेन्ट आफ ड(cid:18).पमेन्ट राईटस एग्रीमेन्ट के पैरा 15(1) के अ(cid:10)ुसार अ(cid:10)ुबन्(cid:15) निद(cid:10)ांक 20.12.15 के अ(cid:10)ुसार परिरयो(cid:4)(cid:10)ा पूण1 कर(cid:10)े की अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) 30 थी जि(cid:4)समें 6 माह का ग्रेस पीरिरएट निदये (cid:4)ा(cid:10)े का प्रानि(cid:18)(cid:15)ा(cid:10) है तथा 17(2) के अ(cid:10)ुसार अ(cid:10)ुबन्(cid:15) के प्रानि(cid:18)(cid:15)ा(cid:10)ों के तथ्यों की आपसी सहमधित से नि(cid:10)स्तारिरत निकये (cid:4)ा(cid:10)े की व्य(cid:18)स्था है। उक्त सम्बन्(cid:15) में कोई नि(cid:18)(cid:18)रण पत्रा(cid:18).ी पर उप.ब्(cid:15) (cid:10)हीं है। ऐसी स्थिस्थधित में अ(cid:10)ुबन्(cid:15) समाप्त है। साथ ही यह भी सूधिचत कर(cid:10)ा है निक मा(cid:10)धिचत्र सं० 1169/टी.एम.ए./ (cid:4)ी.एच./2006 निद(cid:10)ांक 15.2.07 के समया(cid:18)धि(cid:15) 6 (cid:18)ष1 के लि.ए थी (cid:4)ो समाप्त हो चुकी है अतः आपके प्राथ1(cid:10)ा पत्र पर नि(cid:18)चार निकया (cid:4)ा(cid:10)ा संभ(cid:18) (cid:10)हीं है। भ(cid:18)दीय, आर०सी०पाण्डेय (cid:10)गर नि(cid:10)यो(cid:4)क It is alleged that M/s Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited could not

9. succeed in getting the earlier sanctioned map (which had lapsed with efflux of time) re-approved, now hatched a conspiracy by forging the letter head of opposite party no.2 applied for further extension of the earlier agreement executed on 28.12.2010 on forged letter of “Hindustan Chains Pvt. Ltd.” dated 08.07.2015, which was presented before the Chief Architect Town Planner of Ghaziabad Development Authority which was rejected. The said letter head was different to the letter head addressed by opposite party no.2 on earlier occasion to GDA dated 20.10.2006 and 01.02.2007. 3

10. When opposite party no.2 came to know about that letter, they informed the GDA that this is a forged letter and no further request should be entertained by the builders on behalf of opposite party no.2 as the agreement and General Power of Attorney was revoked.

11. The opposite party no.2 feeling duped because of the forged letter head filed before the GDA claiming to be their filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The contents of the application was as under:- परिर(cid:18)ादी नि(cid:10)म्(cid:10) नि(cid:10)(cid:18)ेद(cid:10) करता है :-

1. यह निक "मै० देनि(cid:18)दया. एल्मुनि(cid:10)यम इण्डस्ट्री(cid:4) प्रा०लि.० (पू(cid:18)1 (cid:10)ाम निहन्दुस्ता(cid:10) चैन्स प्रा० लि.०) एक प्राई(cid:18)ेट लि.० कम्प(cid:10)ी है (cid:4)ो कम्प(cid:10)ी अधि(cid:15)नि(cid:10)यम 1956 के प्रा(cid:18)(cid:15)ा(cid:10)ों के अन्त1गत पं(cid:4)ीकृत है जि(cid:4)सका पं(cid:4)ीकृत काया1.य "होट. गोपा. प्.ा(cid:4)ा छोटी ब(cid:4)रिरया रे.(cid:18)े रोड नि(cid:10)कट घंटाघर गाजि(cid:4)याबाद उत्तर प्रदेश" है तथा रा(cid:4)कुमार अग्र(cid:18)ा. उक्त कम्प(cid:10)ी के मै(cid:10)ेजिं(cid:4)ग डायरेक्टर (cid:18) अधि(cid:15)कृत हस्ताक्षरी है चूंनिक उक्त रा(cid:4)कु मार अग्र(cid:18)ा. की आयु 76 (cid:18)ष1 है तथा उ(cid:10)का स्(cid:18)ास्थ्य भी अक्सर सही (cid:10)ही रहता है इस कारण(cid:18)श उ(cid:10)के 5ारा अप(cid:10)े अकाऊंटेंट (cid:18) अधि(cid:15)कृत हस्ताक्षरी निगरीश प्रसाद मेहरा पुत्र आर०पी० मेहरा काया1.य होट. गोपा. प्.ा(cid:4)ा छोटी ब(cid:4)रिरया रे.(cid:18)े रोड नि(cid:10)कट घंटाघर था(cid:10)ा कोत(cid:18)ा.ी गाजि(cid:4)याबाद को उक्त परिर(cid:18)ाद को प्रस्तुत कर(cid:10)े हेतु अधि(cid:15)कृत निकया गया है।

2. यह निक परिर(cid:18)ादी भूनिम क्षेत्रफ. .गभग31एकड़ स्थिस्थत ग्राम अथ1.ा,परग(cid:10)ा .ो(cid:10)ी,तहसी. (cid:18) जि(cid:4).ा गाजि(cid:4)याबाद सम्बस्थिन्(cid:15)त खसरा (cid:10)ं0-1216, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1231, 1232,1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1213, 1258, 1253, 1254, 1255/1, 1255/2, 1259, 1262, 1287 1288, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1260, 1261, 1252, 1244 1271/2, 1218, 1162, 1271, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1257, 1163, 1256, 1273, 1274, 1230, 1229, 1217, 1296, 1397, 1313, 1312, 1330, 1244, 1218, 1217, 1295, 1296, 1297 (फु. खसरा (cid:10)ं0-79)के मालि.क (cid:18) कानिब(cid:4) ब(cid:4)रिरये संक्रमणीय भूनिम(cid:15)र च.े आते है।(ऐतदपश्चात उक्त भूनिम को परिर(cid:18)ादी की प्रश्नगत भूनिम (cid:18)र्णिणत निकया गया है)

3. यह निक नि(cid:18)पक्षी सं०-1, 2(cid:18)4 "मैसस1 पास1(cid:18)(cid:10)ाथ ड(cid:18).प1स लि.० (cid:18) मैसस1 पास1(cid:18)(cid:10)ाथ निबल्ड(cid:18)ै. प्रा०लि.० (cid:18) पार्श्व1(cid:10)ाथ ड(cid:18).प1स लि.०"के क्रमशः मै(cid:10)ेजिं(cid:4)ग डायरेक्टर,चेयरमै(cid:10) (cid:18) डायरेक्टर हैं तथा 'मैसस1 पास1(cid:18)(cid:10)ाथ निबल्ड(cid:18)े. प्रा० लि.० (cid:18) पार्श्व1(cid:10)ाथ ड(cid:18).प1स लि.०"के समस्त कायl को नि(cid:18)पक्षी सं०-1ता 5 5ारा निक्रया1स्थिन्(cid:18)त निकया (cid:4)ाते हैं तथा उसके समस्त कायl के लि.ये नि(cid:18)पक्षी सं०-1ता 5ही उत्तरदायी हैं। 4. यह निक नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा परिर(cid:18)ादी के समक्ष परिर(cid:18)ादी की उक्त (cid:18)र्णिणत प्रश्नगत भूनिम पर 45मीटर ऊँचाई (cid:18)ा.े फ्लैटों के 30/35 टॉ(cid:18)रों का नि(cid:10)मा1ण करके उ(cid:10) फ्लैट्स को सम्बस्थिन्(cid:15)त क्रेतागण को नि(cid:18)क्रय कर(cid:10)े हेतु प्रस्ता(cid:18) रखा गया था जि(cid:4)सके लि.ये परिर(cid:18)ादी (cid:10)े अप(cid:10)े खचq पर गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:18)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण से मा(cid:10)धिचत्र स्(cid:18)ीकृत कराकर हिंहड(cid:10) एयरफोस1 से अ(cid:10)ापलित्त प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करके नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को उप.ब्(cid:15) करायी थी तथा अन्य सम्बस्थिन्(cid:15)त भिभन्न-2नि(cid:18)भागों से अ(cid:10)ापलित्त प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त करके फ्लैट्स का नि(cid:10)मा1ण करणे का उत्तरदाधियत्(cid:18) नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण का था। 5. यह निक इसी उद्देश्य की पूर्तित हेतु परिर(cid:18)ादी (cid:18) नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के मध्य एक असाई(cid:10)मेंट ऑफ ड(cid:18).पमेन्ट राईटस एग्रीमेन्ट ASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT AGREEMENTS") निद(cid:10)ांक28.12.2010 को परिर(cid:18)ादी (cid:18) नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण पार्श्व1(cid:10)ाथ निबल्ड(cid:18)ै. के मध्य नि(cid:10)ष्पानिदत हुआ था तथा उक्त असाई(cid:10)मेंट एग्रीमेन्ट निद(cid:10)ांक28-12-2010काया1.य सब रजि(cid:4)स्ट्रार नि5तीय गाजि(cid:4)याबाद में बही (cid:10)ं०-1जि(cid:4)ल्द (cid:10)ं०4439के पृष्ठ सं०-79से108 पर क्रम सं०-9717पर निद(cid:10)ांक28.12.2010को पं(cid:4)ीकृत हुआ था।(ऐतदपश्चात परिर(cid:18)ाद पत्र में उक्त "ASSIGNMENT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AGREEMENTS"को संधिक्षप्त में"असाई(cid:10)मेंट एग्रीमेंट निद 28.12.2010” (cid:18)र्णिणत निकया गया है।) 4 (cid:15)(cid:10)राभिश का भुगता(cid:10) नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को प्राप्त हो(cid:10)ा था तथा शेष 18.5 प्रधितशत

6. यह निक उक्त असाइ(cid:10)मेंट एग्रीमेंट निद(cid:10)ाँक28.12.2010की शतl के अ(cid:10)ुसार परिर(cid:18)ादी की प्रश्नगत भूनिम पर नि(cid:10)र्मिमत हो(cid:10)े (cid:18)ा.े फ्लैटों का नि(cid:18)क्रय पत्र नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा (cid:18)र्णिणत सम्बस्थिन्(cid:15)त क्रेतागण को परिर(cid:18)ादी के 5ारा नि(cid:10)ष्पानिदत निकया (cid:4)ा(cid:10)ा था तथा सम्बस्थिन्(cid:15)त प्.ैट्स के नि(cid:18)क्रय हो(cid:10)े से प्राप्त प्रधितफ. की (cid:15)(cid:10)राभिश में से 81.5 प्रधितशत (cid:15)(cid:10)राभिश परिर(cid:18)ादी को प्राप्त हो(cid:10)ी थी। 7. यह निक उक्त असाई(cid:10)मेंट एग्रीमेन्ट निद(cid:10)ांक 28.12.2010की तयशुदा शतl के अ(cid:10)ुसार परिर(cid:18)ादी की प्रश्नगत भूनिम पर नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा समस्त फ्लैट्स का नि(cid:10)मा1ण असाई(cid:10)मेन्ट एग्रीमेन्ट निद(cid:10)ाँक28.12.2010से 36 माह की अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) के अन्दर पूण1 कर(cid:10)ा था तथा इस अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) के अन्दर नि(cid:10)मा1ण काय1 पूण1 (cid:10)ा हो(cid:10)े की दशा में 6माह का अधि(cid:15)कतम ग्रेस पीरिरयड/अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) प्रदा(cid:10) निकया (cid:4)ा(cid:10)ा था परन्तु उक्त36+6अथा1त कु.42माह की समयअ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) के उपरान्त भी काय1 पूण1 (cid:10)ा हो(cid:10)े की दशा में नि(cid:10)यत समय सीमा को आगे बढ़ाये (cid:4)ा(cid:10)े का कोई प्रानि(cid:18)(cid:15)ा(cid:10) असाई(cid:10)मेन्ट एग्रीमेण्ट निद(cid:10)ाँक28.12.2010में (cid:10)हीं था।

8. यह निक यहाँ यह (cid:18)र्णिणत कर(cid:10)ा अत्यंतत महत्(cid:18)पूण1 है निक उक्त 6माह का ग्रेस पीरिरयड उसी स्थिस्थधित में बढ़ाया (cid:4)ा(cid:10)ा तय हुआ था (cid:4)ब नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा शेष काय1 को 6माह की अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) में पूण1 हो(cid:10)ा अ(cid:18)श्यंभा(cid:18)ी हो(cid:10)ा नि(cid:10)धिश्चत हो अथा1त यनिद 6माह की अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) में नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा शेष बचे हुए नि(cid:10)मा1ण काय1 को पूण1 करके उसका नि(cid:18)क्रय पत्र नि(cid:10)ष्पानिदत कर(cid:10)े के लि.ये 6माह की अधितरिरक्त अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) की आ(cid:18)श्यकता पड़(cid:10)े पर ही उक्त ग्रेस अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) को प्रदा(cid:10) कर(cid:10)े का प्रानि(cid:18)(cid:15)ा(cid:10) था अन्यथा निकसी भी सूरत में उक्त6माह की ग्रेस अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) को प्रदा(cid:10) कर(cid:10)े का प्रानि(cid:18)(cid:15)ा(cid:10) (cid:10)हीं था।

9. यह निक यद्यनिप परिर(cid:18)ादी (cid:18) नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के मध्य प्रश्नगत भूनिम पर फ्लैटों के नि(cid:10)मा1ण समय सीमा निद०27.12.2013तक तथा ग्रेस अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) सनिहत अधि(cid:15)कतम अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) निद27.06.2014तक थी परन्तु नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा आग्रह निकये (cid:4)ा(cid:10)े पर (cid:18) फ्लैट्स के सम्भानि(cid:18)त क्रेतागण के निहत को दृनि(cid:147)गत रखते हुऐ परिर(cid:18)ादी के 5ारा मौलिखक रूप से उक्त अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) को (cid:15)ीरे-2करके निद०22.12.2014तक बढ़ा निदया था परन्तु निद०22.12.2014के बाद से नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा प्रश्नगत फ्लैट्स के नि(cid:10)मा1ण की बाबत (cid:10)ा तो कोई प्रयास निकया गया है और (cid:10)ा ही इस बाबत कोई अन्य (cid:15)(cid:10)राभिश निद(cid:10)ांक24.06.2015के बाद से परिर(cid:18)ादी को अदा की है इस कारण (cid:18)श भी उक्त असाई(cid:10)मेंट एग्रीमेंट निद(cid:10)ांक28.12.2010पूण1 रूप से नि(cid:10)ष्प्रभा(cid:18)ी हो चुका था इसी कारण (cid:18)श नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा परिर(cid:18)ादी की शेष (cid:15)(cid:10)राभिश निदये निब(cid:10)ा ही उक्त भूनिम को हड़प(cid:10)े का मंसूबा ब(cid:10)ा लि.या था।

10.यह निक निद(cid:10)ाँक27.06.2014के उपरान्त उक्त असाई(cid:10)मेण्ट एग्रीमेन्ट निद(cid:10)ांक28.2.2010स्(cid:18)तः ही शून्य (cid:18) नि(cid:10)रस्त हो(cid:10)े (cid:18) उसकी कोई पाबन्दी परिर(cid:18)ादी या उ(cid:10)के (cid:18)ारिरसा(cid:10) पर (cid:10)हीं है तथा परिर(cid:18)ादी के 5ारा उक्त आशय का एक पं(cid:4)ीकृत का(cid:10)ू(cid:10)ी (cid:10)ोनिटस निद(cid:10)ाँक04.08.2014(cid:18) एक रिरमाईण्डर (cid:10)ोनिटस निद(cid:10)ाँक16.08.2014अप(cid:10)े अधि(cid:15)(cid:18)क्ता श्री (cid:4)े०एम० बारी एड(cid:18)ोकेट निदल्ली के नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को प्रेनिषत निकया था परन्तु उक्त (cid:10)ोनिटस (cid:18) रिरमाईण्डर (cid:10)ोनिटस का ग.त (cid:18) निमथ्या उत्तर नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा निद(cid:10)ांक02.09.2014को परिर(cid:18)ादी को निद.ाया गया था।

11.यह निक असाई(cid:10)मेण्ट एग्रीमेंट निद०28.12.2010के अ(cid:10)ुपा.(cid:10) में परिर(cid:18)ादी की प्रश्नगत भूनिम पर फ्लैट्स के नि(cid:10)मा1ण हेतु गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:18)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण के 5ारा (cid:4)ो मा(cid:10)धिचत्र (cid:10)क्शा निद(cid:10)ांक17.03.2007को स्(cid:18)ीकार निकया गया था जि(cid:4)सकी अस्थिन्तम धितभिथ16.03.2012थी (cid:18)ह अधि(cid:15)कतम ग्रेस अ(cid:18)धि(cid:15) सनिहत27.06.2014के उपरान्त से नि(cid:10)रस्त हो चुका है तथा उक्त (cid:10)क्शे की पु(cid:10)ः स्(cid:18)ीकृत करा(cid:10)े हेतु नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा गा०नि(cid:18)०प्रा० के काया1.य में एक पत्र निद०08.01.2015प्रेनिषत निकया गया था जि(cid:4)सको (cid:4)ी०डी०ए० के 5ारा निद(cid:10)ांक26.08.2015को अस्(cid:18)ीकार निकया (cid:4)ा चुका था।

12. यह निक (cid:4)ब नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण अप(cid:10)े उक्त उद्देश्य में कामयाब (cid:10)हीं हो सके तो अप(cid:10)े ग.त उद्देश्यों की पूर्तित हेतु नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा आपस में षड्यंत्र रचकर परिर(cid:18)ादी की कम्प(cid:10)ी का फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:18) कूटरधिचत .ैटरहेड ब(cid:10)ाकर परिर(cid:18)ादी की फ(cid:4)(cid:153) अधि(cid:15)कारिरता प्राप्त हो(cid:10)े का एक फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:18) कूटरधिचत पत्रनिद(cid:10)ाँक 08.07.2015 को चीफ आक1निटक्ट टाऊ(cid:10) प्.ा(cid:10)र गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:18)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण को प्रेनिषत निकया था तथा उक्त पत्र के माध्यम से नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:18)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण से प्रश्नगत फ्लैटों के नि(cid:10)मा1ण की बाबत रिर(cid:18)ाईज्ड प्.ा(cid:10) स्(cid:18)ीकृत करा(cid:10)े हेतु आ(cid:18)ेद(cid:10) निकया था परन्तु गा०नि(cid:18)०प्रा० के 5ारा उस आ(cid:18)ेद(cid:10) को निद(cid:10)ाँक26.08.2015 को अस्(cid:18)ीकार कर निदया गया है। 5

13. यह निक उक्त फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:18) कूटरधिचत पत्र निद(cid:10)ाँक 08.07.2015की बाबत मुकदमा पं(cid:4)ीकत कर(cid:10)े (cid:18) उधिचत काय1(cid:18)ाही कर(cid:10)े की बाबत परिर(cid:18)ादी (cid:10)े एक पत्र निद(cid:10)ांक03.09.2015को काया1.य गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:18)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण में प्रेनिषत निकया था परन्तु उ(cid:10)के 5ारा उस (cid:4)ा.ी (cid:18) फ(cid:4)(cid:153) कूटरधिचत प्राथ1(cid:10)ा पत्र निद(cid:10)ाँक08.07.2015पर कोई काय1(cid:18)ाही (cid:10)ा करके उक्त कूटरधिचत पत्र निद(cid:10)ाँक 08.07.2018 पर नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के पक्ष में काय1(cid:18)ाही प्रारम्भ कर दी है जि(cid:4)सकी बाबत गाजि(cid:4)याबाद नि(cid:18)कास प्राधि(cid:15)करण के 5ारा निद(cid:10)ाँक19.10.2015को नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को सूधिचत निकया था जि(cid:4)सकी एक प्रधित उ(cid:10)के 5ारा परिर(cid:18)ादी को भी प्रेनिषत की गयी थी इस प्रकार नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा (cid:4)ा.ी (cid:18) कूटरधिचत प्राथ1(cid:10)ा पत्र निद(cid:10)ाँक08.07.2015को अस. के रूप में प्रयोग करके उसका .ाभ .े(cid:10)े में कामयाब हो गये हैं।

14. यह निक ऐसी दशा में उपरोक्त कारणों(cid:18)श नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा परिर(cid:18)ादी के नि(cid:18)र्श्वास को भंगकर/तोड़कर (cid:18) (cid:15)ोखा(cid:15)डी (cid:18) (cid:4)ा.सा(cid:4)ी करके परिर(cid:18)ादी की कम्प(cid:10)ी का फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:18) (cid:4)ा.ी .ैटरहेड तैयार करके उसपर परिर(cid:18)ादी की ओर से फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:4)ा.ी पत्र कूटरधिचत करके उसको अस. के रूप में प्रयोग करके उसकी संदोष-हानि(cid:10) परिर(cid:18)ादी को पहुंचाकर स्(cid:18)यं संदोष-.ाभ प्राप्त कर(cid:10)े के लि.ये नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को अ०(cid:15)ारा 420/467/468/471/120 बी आई०पी०सी० मा० न्याया.य में त.ब निकया (cid:4)ाकर (cid:18)ाद नि(cid:18)चारण नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को दस्थिण्डत निकया (cid:4)ा(cid:10)ा न्याय की दृनि(cid:147) में अधित आ(cid:18)श्यक है। अतः श्रीमा(cid:10) (cid:4)ी से नि(cid:10)(cid:18)ेद(cid:10) है निक उपरोक्त कारणों(cid:18)श नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण के 5ारा परिर(cid:18)ादी के नि(cid:18)र्श्वास को भंगकर/तोड़कर (cid:15)ोखा(cid:15)डी (cid:18) (cid:4)ा.सा(cid:4)ी करके परिर(cid:18)ादी की कम्प(cid:10)ी का फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:18) (cid:4)ा.ी .ैटरहेड तैयार करके उसपर परिर(cid:18)ादी की ओर से फ(cid:4)(cid:153) (cid:18) (cid:4)ा.ी पत्र कूटरधिचत करके उसको अस. के रूप में प्रयोग करके उसकी संदोष-हानि(cid:10) परिर(cid:18)ादी को पहुँचाकर स्(cid:18)यं संदोष-.ाभ कर(cid:10)े प्राप्त कर(cid:10)े के लि.ये नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को अ०(cid:15)ारा-420/467/468/471/120बी आई०पी०सी० मा० न्याया.य में त.ब निकया (cid:4)ाकर बाद नि(cid:18)चारण नि(cid:18)पक्षीगण को दस्थिण्डत निकये (cid:4)ा(cid:10)े की कृपा की (cid:4)ाये। निद(cid:10)ाँक 09.11.2015 परिर(cid:18)ादी रा(cid:4)कुमार अग्र(cid:18)ा. पुत्र श्री गोपा. दास अग्र(cid:18)ा. 5ारा अकाऊंटेंट (cid:18) अधि(cid:15)कृत हस्ताक्षरी निगरीश प्रसाद मेहरा पुत्र स्(cid:18)० आर०पी० मेहरा आयु 56 (cid:18)ष1 काया1.य होट. गोपा. प्.ा(cid:4)ा छोटी ब(cid:4)रिरया रे.(cid:18)े रोड नि(cid:10)कट घंटाघर था(cid:10)ा कोत(cid:18)ा.ी जि(cid:4).ा गाजि(cid:4)याबाद। Meanwhile, the prospective flat buyers, who had invested a huge amount having realized that they have been duped and nothing is coming up some of them have approached the Consumer Forum and some of them before the other authorities. Under the pressure, it is alleged that the developers had moved a forged letter on 08.07.2015.

12. In the aforesaid application, after adducing evidence summons were issued on 06.07.2016. The same have been assailed by means of instant application. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS

Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned letter dated 08.07.2015 was written by somebody else and 6 the applicants have got nothing to do with it. He further submits that even though opposite party no.2 had filed a complaint on 09.11.2015 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad but there was no allegation in the said complaint against the company or the directors and, hence, no summons could have been issued against them. He further submits that the applicant no.1, had resigned on 16.05.2015 before the alleged letter dated

08.07.2015 and, hence, no offence can be said to have been made out against the applicants. He was not the director at the time when the letter was sent to the GDA. He further submits that since the company was not made a party in the complaint so no proceeding can be initiated against the directors/applicants of the company.

14. He further submits that for the same set of dispute, Arbitration Proceedings are there and there is no rational for initiating Criminal Proceedings for the same set of dispute. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex in the case of Maa Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and another1 in which it has been held that in absence of basic ingredients, no person be compelled to face the criminal prosecution. The relevant paragraph of said judgement are quoted hereunder:- “We have carefully considered the rival contentions. It emerges that: a) In the instant case, the appellant ceased to be a Director of the company from 27.12.1997 whereas the alleged offences, if any, were committed during the period from 24.5.1998 to 17.9.1999. b) Admittedly, there are no allegations against the appellant in the First Information Report. c) The company had invited investment from the depositors to invest in the business/benefit funds after receiving due approval of the scheme from the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, in any event, the element of cheating as alleged cannot be made out by any stretch of imagination. d) The complainant/respondent no.2 submitted in writing to this Court that he does not want to proceed against the appellant because according to him the appellant has been inadvertently included as an accused by the Investigating Officer. He further mentioned in the letter that he had already received 55% of the deposited amount from the Official Liquidator and he did not want to proceed against the appellant. e) Even assuming that there could have been a vicarious liability thrust on the appellant, even then there cannot be any such vicarious liability in absence of any allegations and material to show that the appellant was in-charge of or responsible for the conduct of the 1 2010 (8) SCC 524 7 company's business which had given rise to the offence. From any angle of the matter, the appellant cannot be compelled to face the criminal trial in this case.

42. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but at the same time no person be compelled to face criminal prosecution if basic ingredients of the alleged offence against him are altogether absent.

43. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the proceedings initiated against the appellant on the basis of the complaint registered as CC 22656 of 2001 pending before the Xth Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are quashed.”

15. He further relied on the judgement of in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane2 wherein it is held that when a company has not been arrayed as a party by the complainant no criminal proceeding can be initiated against the Chairman, Managing Director and Directors.

16. Learned counsel for the applicants further relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi3 wherein it has been held that Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the part of the Managing Director or the Director of the Company when the company is an accused. Hence, until and unless the company is made a party no proceeding can be initiated against the applicants.

17. Further there is an arbitration proceeding going on between the parties for the same set of dispute, there is no reason for initiating a criminal proceedings and the same has been instituted in a malafide manner just to put undue pressure on the applicants for some kind of settlement.

18. Learned counsel for the applicants further placed reliance on the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of Satish D. Sanghavi v. Union of India and others4. 2 (2015) 12 SCC 781 3 (2019 (17) SCC 193 4 2012 (171) CompCas 309 8 ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2

19. Per contra, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that there was neither any reason nor any occasion for opposite party no.2 to send that alleged letter especially when they themselves had requested the GDA not to entertain any application on their behalf and when the agreement was revoked.

20. He further submits that the defence of the applicants that they were not connected with the day-to-day affairs of the companies is not supported by any unimpeachable/uncontroverted memorandum/certificate and the same is a matter of fact and is in the realm of the trial Court depending upon appreciation of evidence. It is only the applicants, who could have been benefited by the alleged letter. Hence, there is not an iota of doubt that the forged letter was written/sent by the applicants.

21. He further submits that the submission on behalf of the applicants that there is an arbitration going on, hence, criminal proceeding should not be initiated is incorrect. To buttress his argument he is placing on the judgement of Delhi High Court in Hero Fincorp Limited v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another5. He further submits that the argument of the applicants that it is a civil dispute, in which no criminal proceeding can be initiated in reply it is submitted that this is a case of forgery of documents, which is apparently forged and for which divergent stand is being taken by the applicants and three applications are connected to each other. He further submits that in paragraph no.31 of leading case they have accepted that the applicants have authority to sign the letter. For ready reference paragraph no.31 of the instant application is quoted as under:- “That the applicants Company as constituted rights by Development Rights Agreement and General Power of Attorney both dated 28.12.2010 has written a letter dated 08.07.2015 to Ghaziabad Development Authority to sanction the revised plan which is not accepted by the Ghaziabad Development Authority.”

22. In response to the fact that the applicants have submitted resignation prior to such letter is doubted by opposite party no.2. The authenticity of the resignation letter is doubted. He further submits that if a document is 5 2022 SCC OnLine Del 25 9 doubted it can only be seen in trial after adducing evidence, and hence, the resignation letter, which is under doubt cannot be considered in an Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. as it is a defence of other side.

23. Under these facts and circumstances, the matter can only be adjudicated after adducing evidence, which can only be done by the trial Court. FINDINGS

24. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

25. In this case, the applicants were the Directors of Real Estate Development Company known as M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited (PDL) and M/s Parsvnath Buildwell Private Limited (PBPL). The developer company had entered into an agreement with M/s Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd (formerly known as Hindustan Chains Pvt. Ltd.) for development of the residential project on the land belonging to M/s Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.

26. As per the agreement, it was the responsibility of the applicants to complete the residential project and for that the developer had to obtain all the requisite “No Objection Certificates” from various the authorities. For the smooth functioning of the project an “Assignment of Development Rights Agreement” was executed between the parties on 28.12.2010 wherein all the construction activities sales and permissions was to be taken by the builders and to smoothen the activities, the opposite party no.2 had executed a General Power of Attorney. On the basis of the General Power of Attorney the builder was authorized to file for NOCs and permissions on behalf of opposite party no.2. The time was an essence in this agreement. The time for completion of the project was 36 months, which came to an end on

28.12.2013. However, in the agreement there was a grace period of six months. The developer on the basis of permission received from the GDA to develop the project had advertised and collected huge amount of money from the prospective flat buyers and it is alleged that a major portion of money was syphoned off to other companies and the project was not 10 developed in time. The builder after collecting the money had virtually abandoned the project. When the project did not see the completion within the stipulated time including the grace period a legal notice was sent to the developer thereby rescinding the agreement and had also revoked the General Power of Attorney. The map of the project was originally sanctioned on 17.03.2007 and the same was to be completed in a period of 5 years, however, the same was not completed and the validation of the map came to an end on 16.03.2012 with the efflux of time. The builder had made a request to the GDA for revalidation of the map but the same was refused by the GDA. Since there was a pressure on the builder to restart the project, an application for revalidation of the map was filed on the Letter Head of the Hindustan Chains Pvt. Ltd. in favour of the builder on 08.07.2015.

27. Since the opposite party no.2 had already revoked the contract as well as General Power of Attorney, when they came to know about this letter, they immediately informed the GDA that since the agreement has been rescinded, hence, there was no question of any revalidation.

28. Once the opposite party no.2 came to know about the forged and fabricated letter placed before the GDA seeking revalidation of the map, they immediately filed an Application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that the letter dated 08.07.2015 was a forged and fabricated document and was never sent by opposite party no.2, in which after adducing evidence summons have been issued against the applicants, which have been assailed by means of instant application.

29. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants have not written the letter dated 08.07.2015 and somebody else has written this letter. It is a pure disputed question of fact as to who has sent this letter. It is only the applicants and the builder, who could have been benefited by this letter. There is no reason for anybody else to have send such letter.

30. Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicants had argued that the applicant no.1, Sanjeev Kumar Jain had resigned on 16.05.2015, however, 11 the alleged letter was sent to GDA on 08.07.2015 and the same could not have been said to have been signed by the him. The veracity of the resignation letter has been seriously doubted by the opposite party no.2. This fact is also pure disputed question of fact as to when the applicants have resigned and when his resignation was accepted. The alleged letter of resignation is not supported by any documentary evidence to show that when the applicants actually resigned and when their resignation was accepted.

31. Evidently, the beneficiary of this letter was only the applicant’s company and it cannot be assumed that some third party had sent this letter.

32. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex in the case of Maa Annamalai Vs. State of Karnataka and another (supra) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there was no allegation against the applicant in the FIR in that appeal, hence, the Court had given a finding that in absence of any specific allegation there cannot be any vicarious liability to show that he was incharge and responsible for the conduct of the company, which had given rise to the offence. However, in this case there are specific averments in the complaint, which goes to show that it was only the applicant’s company, who would have benefited from filing forged letter and it has been specifically alleged that the same was done by the applicant. So now the applicants have to adduce evidence to prove its defence.

33. Insofar as he judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane (supra) is concerned, for ready reference paragraph nos.11 & 13 of the said judgement are quoted hereunder:-

11. In the case at hand as the complainant's initial statement would reflect, the allegations are against the company, but the company has not been made arrayed as a party. Therefore, the allegations have to be restricted to the Managing Director. As we have noted earlier, allegations are vague and in fact, principally the allegations are against the company. There is no specific allegation against the Managing Director. When a company has not been arrayed as a party, no proceeding can be initiated against it even where vicarious liability is fastened on certain statutes. It has been so held by a three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited in the context of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 12

13. When the company has not been arraigned as an accused, such an order could not have been passed. We have said so for the sake of comp 4leteness. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court should have been well advised to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and that having not been done, the order is sensitively vulnerable and accordingly we set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellant.” A plain reading of the above judgement shows that in that case the allegation was against the company and without making the company a party, proceedings cannot be initiated. However, in the present complaint there are specific allegations levelled against the applicants, who were said to have been the directors of the company. A fabricated letter was placed before the GDA for revalidation of the map in favour of the company. The alleged fabrication cannot be done by the company but by the directors or the other responsible person on behalf of the company, hence, even if the company is not made an accused, the proceedings against the applicants can be initiated.

34. The applicants have placed reliance on the judgement of Shiv Kumar Jatia Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (supra) wherein the relevant paragraph no.19 of the said judgement which was relied upon is as follows:- “The liability of the Directors /the controlling authorities of company, in a corporate criminal liability is elaborately considered by this Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal. In the aforesaid case, while considering the circumstances when Director/person in charge of the affairs of the company can also be prosecuted, when the company is an accused person, this Court has held, a corporate entity is an artificial person which acts through its officers, Directors, Managing Director, Chairman, etc. If such a company commits an offence involving mens rea, it would normally be the intent and action of that individual who would act on behalf of the company…...” A plain reading of this judgement clearly shows that the liability of the directors or the controlling authority of the company and the criminal liability has been elaborately considered in the case of case of Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation6. In the matter of Sunil Bharti Mittal (supra) it has been held that the directors or the person incharge of the company can be prosecuted where the company is also an accused as the company is an artificial person and acts through its Directors and Managing Directors. If such company commits an offence involving mens rea it is clear 6 (2015) 4 SCC 609 13 that the intent and action would be of that individual, who could be the Director or other controlling person of the company, who had acted on behalf of the company, hence, if the mens rea is there, the criminal proceeding can be initiated against the Director or the other person responsible for the working of the company.

35. In this case a fabricated letter has been placed before the GDA for revalidation of the map. Since the responsibility to get the NOC was that of the applicant’s company, so it is assumed that the person responsible for conducting the affairs of the company (Director) would obviously be responsible for such an act, hence, the criminal proceeding can be initiated against them.

36. After perusing the record I find it is not a case where from the plain reading of the complaint as well as summoning order no prima facie case is said to have been made out against the applicants.

37. The entire averments whether the applicants were responsible on the date of the incident or he had resigned is a pure disputed question of fact, which can only be seen after adducing evidence in the trial.

38. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The summoning order has been issued after looking into the complaint and recording statements of the complainant and the witnesses. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants are all disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court. CONCLUSION

39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal7, M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra8, R.P. 7 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 8 AIR 2021 SC 1918 14 Kapur Vs. State of Punjab9, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma10, and lastly, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another11 (Para-10) has laid down the guidelines, in which it was held that only those cases in which no prima facie case is made out can be considered in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

40. The instant application does not fall under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments mentioned above, and followed in a number of matters. Moreover, the facts as alleged cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the applicants. It is only after the evidence and trial, it can be seen as to whether the offence, as alleged, has been committed or not.

41. The facts and the accountability of the applicants are different from that of the investors nominee director of Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.32964 of 2016 as the role, accountability and the responsibilities of the applicants was different from the investor nominee director.

42. Hence, the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.

43. However, it is open for the applicants to take all its defence in the trial.

44. It is made clear that the observations made in this order would not come in the way of the trial and the trial may proceed without being influenced by the observations made by this Court. Order Date :- 08.07.2025 S.P. 9 AIR 1960 S.C. 866, 10 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 11 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 15