Punit Pruti & Others vs State Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Another

Delhi High Court

+ CRL.M.C.1782/2009 PUNIT PRUTI & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mahish Vashisht, Adv. versus

STATE GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. with

Ms. Seema Gulati &

Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advts.

IN THE PRESENCE OF:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

1. Should the reporters of local papers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. On 16.7.2008 petitioners had been summoned on the charge sheet filed under Sections 420/469/471/120B
of the IPC, Police Station Chitranjan Park. The petitioner no.1 is Punit Pruti, petitioner no.2 is Sameer Pruthi,
both are the sons of petitioner no.3 Diwan Chand Pruthi. This order of summoning is the subject matter of the
present petition.

2. The undisputed facts are that Mr. L.R. Aggarwal and Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, directors, of M/s Krishi Rasayan
Exports Pvt. Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 1 of 12 Ltd. had business dealings with petitioner no.1 in real
estate. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the HSIDC) floated a
scheme for development of an Industrial Technology Park at Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. Petitioner no.1,
Mr. L.R. Aggarwal, his son Rajesh Aggarwal, and one Gurinder Singh Kamboj had agreed to form a company in
the name of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. to be registered with the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar,
Punjab in order to prepare a project report for allotment of 10 acres of land for the development of this
[Link]. A sum of Rs.50 lacs was arranged and deposited in favor of HSIDC, Panchkula pursuant to an
application for allotment of land but the said application was rejected. The amount of Rs.50 lacs was refunded
by the HISDC in the name of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. which had been incorporated in July 2006.

3. The parties thereafter wished to settle the final accounts between them and a post-dated cheque bearing
no.143403 dated 30.11.2006 for Rs.50 lacs drawn on the Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch was issued by
petitioner no.1 in favour of M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. The said cheque was, however, dishonoured
and accordingly a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by M/s Krishi
Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. against petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 which is pending disposal in the court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 2 of 12 This complaint is dated 27.4.2007.
On 14.7.2007, M/s Krishi Rasayana Export Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint against the petitioners herein namely
Punit Pruthi, Sameer Pruthi and Diwan Chand Pruthi, petitioner nos.1 and 2 being the directors of M/s Krish
Indian Kanoon - [Link] 1
 Punit Pruti & Ors vs State Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Anr

Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420/469/471/120B of the IPC.
and cognizance was taken through the impugned order dated 16.7.2008.

4. The facts as detailed above are not in dispute.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on three grounds:

a)- It is submitted that the Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to try the present complaint which is an FIR
under Section 420/468/471/120B of the IPC; no cause of action had taken place in Delhi; the offer for
allotment of land was made at Manesar by the HSIDC; the project report was submitted to the HSIDC at
Panchkula; a cheque of Rs. 50 lacs was deposited with HSIDC, again outside the jurisdiction of Delhi.
Courts; the proposal was also rejected by HSIDC which is again outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts.
such no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi; trial of the present proceedings
are barred.

b)- The FIR is a gross abuse of the process of the court as a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 3 of 12 on the same cause of action has already been filed. The
Notice dated 01.3.2007 issued under Section 138 Negotiable Act does not whisper a word about any allegation.
of cheating; so also the subsequent complaint which is also silent on the said aspect. The belated complaint
under Section 420 of the IPC in the month of July 2007 is an afterthought and a gross misuse of the process of
the court only to harass and pressurize the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported as (2000) II SCC 636 G. Sagar Suri & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others to
substantiate the submission that where a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act had
already been filed and no explanation has been offered as to why in the said complaint details of the offence
now contained in the present FIR had not been mentioned, it is apparent that the subsequent complaint is an
abuse of process of law; a chagrined and frustrated litigant should not be permitted to give vent to his
frustration by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court in such a manner. c)- The last
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC which
necessary entail

i). Deception;

Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 4 of 12 ii). Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any
property or;

iii). To consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit are clearly missing in the instant case. No act of
Inducement on the part of the petitioners has been alleged by the complainant. Reliance has been placed on
judgments reported as (2007) 7 SCC 373 Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. and (2009) 1
SCC (Crl.) 996 V.Y. Jose and Anr. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. to substantiate his submission that in the
absence of the existence of the said ingredients the alleged offence of cheating is not made out and the
the complaint is liable to be quashed.

6. These submissions have been opposed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant.

7. It is stated that the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts and the deception
and misrepresentation by the petitioners was practiced by the petitioners in the transaction and the
negotiations conducted between the parties while they were in Delhi. The ingredients of Section 420 of the
IPC are different and distinct from the offence as contained in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and the pendency of civil proceedings by themselves do not bar the Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 5 of 12
prosecution of a criminal complaint; this is clear from the tenor of the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and the offence as detailed in Section 420 of the IPC.
Indian Kanoon - [Link] 2
 Punit Pruti & Others vs State Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another

8. Las presentaciones han sido apreciadas y se ha revisado el registro.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein are all residents of M-255, Greater Kailash. This address has
been mentioned by them in their memo of parties. M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. of whom the
complaint Mr. L.R. Aggarwal is a director has its office at Hemkunt Tower, Nehru Place. This is also the
address given by the petitioner in the present petition. It is also not in dispute that the negotiations and the
discussions between the parties took place while they were in Delhi and the cheque of Rs.50 lacs had been
issued by petitioner no.1 to M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports [Link]. while they were in Delhi.

10. Chapter XIII of the Code deals with jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials. Section 177
incorporates the ordinary/general rule of jurisdiction, as stated above, while the Sections following it, viz., 178
to 182 embody the exceptions. The general principle of law is that all crime is local and the jurisdiction to try
A person for an offence depends upon the crime having been committed within the area of such jurisdiction.
Section 182 states that any offence which includes cheating may, if the deception is practiced by means of
letter of telecommunication messages, be Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 6 of 12 inquired into or tried by any
Court within whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages were sent or received; and any offense of
cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose
local jurisdiction the property was delivered by the person deceived or was received by the accused person.

11. In 1982 CLJ 1492 Bhola Nath Arora vs. State the territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence.
under Section 420 of the IPC had been questioned; the ratio of the said judgment states that the place where
Deception has been practiced and the inducement made would have the jurisdiction to try the offence.

12. In AIR 1957 SC 857 Mubarak Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing
with the question of jurisdiction of a criminal Court where the complainant was doing business from Goa and
The appellant at that time was in Karachi; the transactions between the two parties having been held through
telephone, telegram, and letters and at no time the appellant having been in Goa during the entire period of
commission of the offence and he being only at Karachi, Pakistan; the Hon'ble Apex Court after examining
the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC had held that although the misrepresentation and the deception was
organized by the appellant while he was in Pakistan yet the consequences of the deception i.e. delivery of the
Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 7 of 12 property had taken place in Bombay and as such the Courts in India
would not be precluded from trying the said offence.

13. In the instant case it is apparent from the aforestated position at law that the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts is
not ousted.

14. The second and the third submission of the learned counsel are intertwined and can be dealt with
co-jointly. Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Act has been filed on 27.4.2007 and is undisputedly
pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate Kolkata. Present complaint has been filed on 14.7.2007
wherein it has been averred that the petitioner did not inform the complainant about the initial refund of Rs.50
lacs by HSIDC and they had retained the said amount with them fraudulently and dishonestly. It was only
after a follow up that the complainant came to know that the accused persons had not shown the name of
Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Mr. L.R. Aggarwal, as directors of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd., although their
names had been shown as directors in the project report submitted to the HSIDC. On further inquiry it was
revealed that although the names of Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal and Mr. L.R. Aggarwal have been given as Directors
in the original application yet their names stood deleted in the articles of association fraudulently by
submitting false resignation letters which were forged and fabricated as they did not bear the signatures of
Mr. L.R. Aggarwal and Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal. The report of the CFSL, Rohini dated 11.3.2008 Crl.
[Link].1782/2009 Page 8 of 12 supports this contention as contained in the complaint and the resignation
Letters purportedly issued by Mr. L.R. Aggarwal and Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal have not been signed by them.
The complaint further states that after several dates, a meeting has been arranged between the parties when the
petitioners herein had issued a post dated cheque of Rs.50 lacs which stood dishonoured; the said cheque had
Indian Kanoon - [Link] 3
 Punit Pruti & Others vs State Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another

not been returned back to the complainant but had been misappropriated by the petitioner in connivance with
the bank officials of Chandigarh. The complaint further recites that it was a fraudulent and dishonest
inducement by the petitioner to the complainant which had led the complainant to part with Rs.50 lacs as
application fees.

15. The ingredients of cheating are defined in Section 415 of the IPC, which entail a fraudulent or dishonest
inducement of the complainant to either deliver any property or to consent that any such person shall retain
any property or intentionally inducing the complainant to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit to do if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Illustration (f) to the said Section of the Indian Penal
Code, provides a clue to the mind of the legislature in such matters. The said illustration is as under:- "A
intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and

thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.

Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 9 of 12

16. In its plain language, it is evident from this illustration that what is material is the intention of the drawer.
at the time the cheque is issued, and the intention has to be gathered from the facts on the record. If from the
circumstances it is established that the failure to meet a cheque was not accidental but was the consequence
expected by the accused, the presumption would be that the accused intended to cheat.

In 1996 JCC 590 M.M. Monga vs. Union of India, it has been held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not a bar for filing a complaint under
Section 420/120 B of the IPC if a prima facie case is made out.

18. In 2009(2) JCC (NI)73 R.P. Mathur Prop. RLF vs. S.R.P. Industries Ltd it has been held that the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the offense under Section 420 of the IPC are two distinct
and separate offences with different ingredients and under two separate enactments; separate punishments are
provided for the two sets of the offences; proceedings against an accused at the initial stage can be quashed
only if on the face of the complaint or on the papers accompanying the same no offence is constituted. The
The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is completed once the cheque issued is
dishonoured and the said dishonor of cheque is brought to the notice of the drawer of the cheque; Crl.
[Link].1782/2009 Page 10 of 12 whereas for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, it is necessary for the
prosecution to establish that the accused had no intention of paying anything and knowing that the cheque
would be dishonoured he had issued the cheque which had ultimately been dishonoured. Ingredients of
Section 420 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are distinctly different and operate in
two different spheres.

19. The judgment relied upon by the learned defence counsel as reported in 'G. Sagar Suri' supra is distinct in
its own facts; in the course of the investigation of the said FIR it had been recorded that both G. Sagar Suri
and his wife Shama Suri were not the directors of M/s Ganga Automobiles Pvt. Ltd which had been taken into
account while quashing the FIR against them under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.

20. It is apparent that in the instant case the complainant had been induced by the petitioners that they would
be floating a joint company in the name of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. of whom the complainant
Mr. L.R. Aggarwal and Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal would also be the directors; it was on this inducement that the
the complainant had invested money in the project which did not yield results; after several deliberations a cheque of
Rs.50 lacs was issued by the petitioner to the complainant which was dishonoured. The dishonest intention of
The petitioner can also be gathered from the letters of resignation purported to have been Crl.
[Link].1782/2009 Page 11 of 12 issued by [Link] and [Link] Aggarwal to the Registrar of
Companies to delete their name from the articles of association of their newly floated company i.e. M/s Krish
Indian Kanoon - [Link] 4
 Punit Pruti & Others vs State Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & Another

Technopark Pvt. Ltd. which according to the CFSL report are not in their handwritings.

21. The prima facie ingredients of the offence for which cognizance has been taken are established. There is no merit.
The revision petition is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR

JUDGE

October 13, 2009

Nandan

Crl. [Link].1782/2009 Page 12 of 12

Indian Kanoon - [Link] 5