# Mukta Srivastava & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1644
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-20
- **Case number:** J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 909 of 2024
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Narendra Kumar Johari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukta-srivastava-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51577
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Criminal law - FIR - quashing - Article
226 - territorial jurisdiction - Sections 156,
177, 178, 179, 181(4) Cr.P.C. - forgery and
fabrication of Board Resolution - execution of
sale deeds on basis of forged resolution -
criminal breach of trust - misappropriation of
sale
consideration
-
proceeds
of
crime
deposited in bank accounts at Lucknow - part
cause of action within territorial jurisdiction -
consequence ensued at Lucknow - FIR not
liable to be quashed - civil/commercial dispute
coupled with criminal culpability - defence pleas
not to be examined at investigation stage .

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,934 of 42,473. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39934 for what follows._

1644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Computerized
No.
D202204230004705
under Section 5-A Uttar Pradesh Prevention
of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 as well as
order dated 25.4.2023 passed by learned
Session Judge, Faizabad in Criminal
Revision No. 49/2023 related to Crime No.
322/2022, under Section 3/5ka/5kha/8 of
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter
Act, 1955, pertaining to Police StationRaunahi, District-Ayodhya/Faizabad are set
aside and reversed.

26. The District Magistrate, Ayodhya
is directed to release the vehicle in question
forthwith in favour of the petitioner. The
petitioner is directed to give a bank
guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ayodhya and file a
bond that he shall be producing the vehicle
as and when needed by the criminal courts
or the District Magistrate, Ayodhya, and he
shall not make any changes nor any
variation in the vehicle.

27. No order as to costs.

28. Let the copy of this order be sent
to the court concerned for its compliance.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1644
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI,
J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 909 of 2024

Mukta Srivastava & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajesh Chandra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Pranjal Krishna

Criminal law - FIR - quashing - Article
226 - territorial jurisdiction - Sections 156,
177, 178, 179, 181(4) Cr.P.C. - forgery and
fabrication of Board Resolution - execution of
sale deeds on basis of forged resolution -
criminal breach of trust - misappropriation of
sale
consideration
-
proceeds
of
crime
deposited in bank accounts at Lucknow - part
cause of action within territorial jurisdiction -
consequence ensued at Lucknow - FIR not
liable to be quashed - civil/commercial dispute
coupled with criminal culpability - defence pleas
not to be examined at investigation stage .

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Lee Kun Hee & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(2012) 3 SCC 132

2. Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of
Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 1

3. Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) & Anr., (1999) 8 SCC 728

4. Kushal Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Mala Gupta,
(2011) 12 SCC 434

5.
P.
Chidambaram
v.
Directorate
of
Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24

6. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vikash
Mishra @ Vikash Mishra, (2023) 6 SCC 49

7. Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha &
Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 786

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Shri S. C. Mishra, learned Senior
Counsel along with Shri Rajesh Chandra
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Shri Jaideep Narian Mathur, learned Senior
Counsel along with Shri Pranjal Krishna,
3 All. Mukta Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1645
Shri Manan Batra, Ms. Aishvarya Mathur
and Shri Suhaib Ashraf, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 4- informant and Shri
S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. By means of this writ petition the
petitioners have challenged F.I.R. dated
26.01.2024 bearing Case Crime No. 0034
of 2024 under Sections 381, 409, 419, 420,
467, 468, 471, 506 IPC, Police Station-
Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow and they
have also sought a writ of mandamus that
they may not be arrested in connection of
the aforesaid F.I.R.

3. The informant has filed short
counter affidavit which was taken on record
when the hearing was concluded and the
learned counsel for the petitioners did not
propose to file any response as is
mentioned in the order by which orders
were reserved.

4. On a reading of the impugned
F.I.R. we find that it has been lodged by the
opposite party no. 4 against eight accused
including the petitioners. The petitioner no.
2 is a Director of Radiant Buildcon Private
Ltd. (hereinafter referred as to 'the
Company') having its registered Office at
Chandigarh. The opposite party no. 4- the
informant is also one of the Directors. In
fact, the informant is also a major share
holder along with his family members in
the said Company. The parent holding
company is Avadh Rail Infra Ltd. in which
both petitioner no. 1 and the informant are
Directors along with other Directors. In
fact, the said holding company has as many
as six subsidiary companies, details of
which are given in Para 10 of the writ
petition. The petitioners are not share
holders in any of the companies, though,
the petitioner no. 2 is a Director in most of
them.

5. The Company has a housing
project on 1.75 acres of land i.e. Marina
Heights at SAS Nagar, Punjab. Four
Towers have been built comprising of 18
Flats each i.e. total 72 Flats. 21 Flats were
sold during 2014-21, as claimed, with sale
consideration 33 lacs to 35 lacs per Flats.
Since 1996, the petitioner no. 2- Rohit
Srivastava was working in the holding
company Avadh Rail Infra Ltd. whose
registered headquarter is at Lucknow. He
was inducted as a Director in the Company.
As the aforesaid housing project had not
been registered with RERA, therefore, Flats
were not to be sold and status quo was to
be maintained. The Company was not in a
position to sell the same. For these reasons
the informant and his father who is also a
Director in the Company, namely, Subhash
Sarraf did not pay much attention to the
activities of the aforesaid Company. Taking
advantage of this the accused, especially,
Petitioner no. 2 and accused no. 2 in the
F.I.R. who is an Accountant in the
Company, forged and fabricated a Board
Resolution dated 01.10.2022 by which it
was claimed that petitioner no. 2 had been
authorized to sell the Flats on behalf of the
Company and based on the aforesaid forged
and fabricated Resolution 11 sale deeds
were executed by petitioner no. 2 after
01.10.2022.

6. At this stage, it may be mentioned
that during the course of argument Shri
Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the informant
submitted that initially they were aware
about 11 sale deeds only, but, now, it
appears that there are many more sale
deeds
which
have
been
fraudulently
executed by the petitioner no. 2 based on
the aforesaid Resolution of the Board of
Directors dated 01.10.2022.
1646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It is also alleged in the F.I.R. that
the informant and his father was not even
present at SAS Nagar, Punjab when the
Resolution is said to have been passed at
the said place which will prove that the
petitioner no. 2 has resorted to forgery,
fabrication/manipulation of documents and
based thereon has fraudulently executed
sale deeds in respect of Flats owned by the
Company to the purchasers in connivance
with some of them and in this process he
has misappropriated substantial part of the
sale consideration, as, it has come to
knowledge of the informant, on inquiry
made subsequently, that only part of sale
consideration was deposited in the account
of the Company. The remaining sale
consideration was deposited in the account
of petitioner no. 2 or his wife petitioner no.
1 either by online transaction or cash and
this ill gotten money i.e. proceeds of crime,
was deposited by the petitioner no. 1 and 2
in their accounts at Lucknow, thereby,
giving part cause of action at Lucknow
where the F.I.R. has been lodged. Details of
the accounts in name of the petitioners at
Lucknow have been mentioned in the F.I.R.
with the allegation that substantial part of
the sale consideration received on the basis
of fraudulent sale transaction based on the
forged Board Resolution dated 01.10.2022,
have been deposited by the petitioners in
their personal accounts at Lucknow and not
that of the Company. It is said that the
informant and his father could not come to
know about the illegal transactions because
status quo was to be maintained with regard
to the housing project on account of
absence of registration with RERA. Theft
of sale deeds from the Office of Avadh Rail
Infra Ltd. at Lucknow by the petitioner no.
2 is also alleged. It is alleged that the
accused have conspired to commit breach
of trust and the offence as has been
mentioned in the F.I.R.

8. Challenging the said F.I.R. it was
contended by Shri S.C. Mishra, learned
Senior
Counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioners that first and foremost the Police
Station- Sarojni Nagar under Lucknow
Commissionerate
lacked
territorial
jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, lodging
of the F.I.R. and the investigation in respect
thereof is without jurisdiction. He referred
to Sections 177, 178, 179, 181 Cr.P.C. in
this regard. He also submitted that the
F.I.R. had been deliberately lodged at
Lucknow as, the petitioner no. 2 was a
Member of the Aam Aadmi Party in
Punjab, as such, there is a political malice
also behind lodging of the F.I.R. at
Lucknow so that the informant may, with
the help of the powers that be, victimize
and harass the petitioners. He also
submitted that wife of the petitioner no. 2,
who has nothing to do with the running of
the Company, has also been made an
accused which itself goes to show malafide.
His next submission was that there is
concealment of the facts by the informant.
Various
proceedings
were
going
on
between the parties but they have not been
disclosed in the first information report
which is evidence of their malice. In this
regard he referred to proceedings initiated
by the informant before the NCLT at
Kolkata on 26.09.2023 in respect of
Tirupati Polysacks Pvt. Ltd. wherein
petitioner no. 2 as also the informant and
his father are Directors as dispute had
arisen between them and the petitioner no.
2 was being pressurized to sell off his 50%
shares in the said company and as the
informant and his father were indulging in
other nefarious activities relating to the said
Company. He also referred to a Suit filed
by the petitioner no. 2 at Chennai. He
referred to a Suit for permanent injunction
filed by the petitioner no. 2 at Chandigarh
against the informant on 11.01.2024. He
3 All. Mukta Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1647
also referred to proceedings initiated by the
petitioner no. 2 under Section 241 of the
Companies
Act
before
the
NCLT,
Chandigarh against his proposed removal
as a Director as also revocation of authority
given to him for various activities relating
to the Company i.e. Radiant Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd. He submitted that had these facts been
disclosed in the F.I.R., Police would have
got
to
know
that
it
is
purely
a
civil/commercial dispute between Directors
of the Company which has been given a
colour of criminality so as to harass and
victimize the petitioners. He submitted that
the
dispute
was
essentially
of
a
civil/commercial nature and there was no
criminality involved therein. In this context
he referred to decisions of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Mithilesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of
Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2022) 14
SCC 572, Criminal Appeal No. 932 of
2021; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 5866 of
2022; Usha Chakraborty and Anr. Vs.
State of West Bengal and Anr. reported in
2323 LiveLaw (SC)67, Criminal Appeal
No. 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
3337 of 2023 and Sachin Garg Vs. State of
U.P. and Anr. arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.
4415 of 2023.

9. He also invited the Court's attention
to a complaint dated 09.01.2024 filed by
the petitioner no. 2 at Chandigarh alleging
that the father of the informant along with
several musclemen entered the office of the
Company and took away all relevant
documents including the authorization
letter/ Board Resolution dated 01.10.2022
and thereafter, lodged the impugned F.I.R.
alleging that the Resolution was forged and
fabricated. He also submitted that the
petitioner no. 2 has sold as many as 33
Flats but the objection is being raised only
with regard to 11 Flats. All this was within
the knowledge of the informant and his
father and no objection was raised at any
point of time but only when a dispute arose
in September, 2023 between them, a story
has been cooked up with ulterior motives.
He also submitted that the petitioner no. 2
has not received any remuneration for the
services
rendered
by
him
and
the
understanding was that once the Flats at
Marina Heights were sold out he would be
given profit therefrom. He submitted that
the deposit made by one of the purchasers
of Flats Shri Gurjant Singh Dhillon who is
also an accused in the F.I.R., in the account
of the petitioner no. 2, is in fact, a loan of
Rs.25 lacs extended to the petitioner by the
former, therefore, there is no truth in the
allegations in this regard. The allegation of
theft having taken place the registered
Headquarters of Avadh Rail Infra Ltd. at
Lucknow is also a concocted one because
the allegation is of theft of original sale
deeds, whereas, the original sale deeds
would be in the possession of purchasers
and not Avadh Rail Infra Ltd. There was no
occasion to keep the said sale deeds at the
registered Headquarters of Avadh Rail Infra
Ltd. at Lucknow, as, they pertained to the
activities of the subsidiary Company i.e.
Radiant Buildcon Private Ltd. This has
been done only to make out the jurisdiction
at Lucknow for lodging of the F.I.R. and
harassing the petitioners. The assertion in
the F.I.R. that the informant and his father
were not aware about these activities is also
incorrect, as, the purchasers of Flats had
been arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. For all
these reasons, according to him, the F.I.R.
was liable to be quashed, as, essentially it
was a civil/commercial dispute. Lack of
jurisdiction in this regard was also
emphasized by him.

10. Shri Jaideep Narian Mathur,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
1648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite party no. 4- informant submitted
that part cause of action had arisen within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Police
Station- Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow
and legal position is settled that it being so
the F.I.R. could be lodged in such a police
station. He referred to the provisions of
Section 156(2), Chapter 13, 177, 179,
181(3) and 181(4) Cr.P.C. to drive home his
point. He invited our attention to the
allegations in the F.I.R., according to
which, a theft had taken place at Lucknow
in which the petitioner no. 2 was involved,
therefore, in view of Section 181(3) Cr.P.C.
and other provisions referred herein the
cause of action for the same occurred at
Lucknow as the crime was committed at
Lucknow. Secondly, based on the forged
Board Resolution dated 01.10.2022 sale
deeds were executed in favour of the
purchasers fraudulently and the proceeds of
sale were substantially deposited in the
bank account of petitioners no. 1 and 2 at
Lucknow, therefore, in view of Section
181(4) Cr.P.C. also F.I.R. could be lodged
at Lucknow. As regards concealment of
facts he submitted that whatever was
relevant has been stated in the F.I.R. and
proceedings which are said to be pending
between the parties have nothing to do with
the fabrication of the Board Resolution
dated 01.10.2022 and misappropriation of
money of the Company by the petitioners
and other accused as also the criminal
breach of trust and conspiracy in this
regard. This is not a case where the dispute
is purely of civil/ commercial nature which
can be settled by resort to mediation,
arbitration or civil remedies. There is an
element of criminality involved as Board
Resolution of the Company has been forged
and fabricated. Based thereon fraudulent
sale transactions have taken place and the
Company has been deprived of its money
by siphoning of substantial amount of the
sale consideration to personal accounts of
the petitioners. The allegations contained in
the F.I.R. clearly spell out the criminality
involved as also the guilt of the petitioners.
The petitioner no. 1 the wife of the
petitioner no. 2 has been made an accused
because some of the sale proceeds from the
crime committed have been deposited in
her account at Lucknow. It is not a case
where ingredients of Sections in which the
F.I.R. has been lodged were not made out.
Neither there is lack of jurisdiction nor any
valid ground for interference under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

11. He submitted that based on the
aforesaid Resolution dated 01.10.2022
fraudulent sale transactions were done from
May, 2023 to November, 2023. The
informant and his father came to know
about 11 such fraudulent sale transactions
and registeries on 01.01.2024, however, by
then, they were not aware about the forging
and fabrication of Board Resolution dated
01.10.2022. Accordingly, on 04.01.2024 a
public notice was published to the effect
that the petitioners were not authorized to
sell the Flats of Marina Heights. On
08.01.2024 a Whatsapp message was
received from one of the brokers about the
Board Resolution dated 01.10.2022 in
favour of the petitioner no. 2. Once, the
petitioner no. 2 came to know that fraud
committed by him had been revealed, in
order to save himself, he gave a complaint
to the Police at Chandigarh on 09.01.2024
alleging that the father of the informant,
who is 78 years old, along with musclemen
went to the office and took away relevant
papers including the authorization letter i.e.
Board Resolution. This complaint was
lodged by petitioner no. 2 only to enable
him to take the plea that he did not have the
Board Resolution so that the forgery may
not be established but, even after this
3 All. Mukta Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1649
complaint at least one sale deed was
executed by petitioner no. 2 on 11.01.2024
which could not have been done without
showing the Registrar the Board Resolution
referred above. The aforesaid complaint is
nothing but an attempt to cover up the
forgery. This sale deed dated 11.01.2024 is
mentioned at serial no. 32 in the list of
deeds annexed by the petitioners as page
159 but, conveniently, while mentioning
the same, date of the deed has been omitted
for
obvious
reasons
as
mentioned
hereinabove. He submitted that in some of
the sale deeds entire consideration had been
received at Lucknow in the accounts of the
petitioners. He invited attention of the
Court to Annexure No. SA-2 to the short
counter affidavit filed in the matter. Shri
Mathur has also submitted that custodial
interrogation was necessary for recovery of
the Board Resolution regarding which a
false story has been set up in the complaint
dated 09.01.2024. He also invited our
attention to the copy of the Board
Resolution filed by the petitioners as
Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition for a
perusal of the same which is alleged to
contain the signatures of the father of the
informant and informant. He then invited
our attention to see the signatures of the
informant at Page 161 and that of his father
at Page 165. He submitted that on a bare
perusal from naked eyes the difference in
the signatures is apparent and it does not
require an expert opinion to arrive at a
conclusion that the signatures on the
alleged Board Resolution dated 01.10.2022
are forged and fabricated. He also asserted
that in fact presence of the informant at
Chandigarh on 01.10.2022 has falsely been
shown as they were in Kolkata. The story
set up by the petitioners that amount of
Rs.25
lacs
deposited
by
the
other
purchasers and accused Dhillon in the
account of the petitioners was loan, is
unacceptable and is nothing but an after
thought, once this fact was mentioned by
him during hearing. In support of his
contentions he referred to decisions of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in
(2012) 3 SCC 132; Lee Kun Hee,
President, Samsung Corporation, South
Korea and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Ors.(Paragraph 32 -42), (2010) 1
SCC1; Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. (Paragraph 2429), (2011) 12 SCC 434; Kushal Kumar
Gupta
and
Anr.
Vs.
Mala
Gupta
(Paragraph 5-7), (2007) 5 SCC 786; Asit
Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha
and Ors. (Paragraph 19-22).

12. As regards requirement of
custodial interrogation he referred two
judgments reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24; P.
Chidambaram
Vs.
Directorate
of
Enforcement, 2017 SCC OnLine Del
9265; Prakash Gupta Vs. State of Delhi
and (2023) 6 SCC 49; Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. Vikash Mishra @ Vikash
Mishra.

13. Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State submitted that
prima facie, on a bare reading of the F.I.R.
it can not be said that cognizable offence is
not made out. Theft of documents has taken
place at Lucknow and the petitioners are
alleged to have committed the same.
Proceeds of crime have been deposited at
Lucknow which has not been denied in the
writ petition at all. He has referred to
Section 179, 180, 181(4) Cr.P.C. to drive
home the point that the F.I.R. could be
lodged at Police Station- Sarojni Nagar,
Lucknow. The petitioner no. 2 has a
criminal history of three cases including the
case at hand, whereas, the petitioner no. 1
has a criminal history of two cases which
has not been disclosed. He also informed
1650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Court that he has instructions from the
Economic Offences Wing of the police
department which was investigating the
matter that custodial interrogation was
necessary for investigating the crime.

14. So far as the first contention of Sri
S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners regarding lack of jurisdiction for
lodging of the FIR impugned herein and for
investigation,
Section
156(1)
Cr.P.C.
provides that - any officer in-charge of a
Police Station may, without the order of
Magistrate, investigate any cognizable
case, which a Court having jurisdiction
over the local area within the limits of said
station would have power to inquire into or
try under the provisions of Chapter- XIII.
Sub Section-2 thereof provides that no
proceeding of a police officer in any such
case, shall, at any stage, be called into
question, on the ground that the case was
one in which such officer was not
empowered
under
this
Section
to
investigate. We may in this context refer to
Section 177 Cr.P.C. which is part of
Chapter-XIII referred in Section 156(1)
Cr.P.C.,
as,
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Investigating Officer to investigate any
cognizable case is interlinked with the
jurisdiction of the Court to inquire into or
try such cases. Section 177 Cr.P.C. provides
that - every offence shall ordinarily be
inquired into and tried by Court within
whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
Thus, it is the commission of the offence
which gives jurisdiction to the Courts and
correspondingly to the Investigating Officer
to investigate it. In this context Section 178
Cr.P.C. is relevant which provides- a) when
it is uncertain in which of several local
areas an offence was committed, or b)
where an offence is committed partly in
one local area and partly in another, or c)
where an offence is a continuing one, and
continues to be committed in more local
areas than one, or d) where it consists of
several acts done in different local areas, it
may be inquired into or tried by a Court
having jurisdiction over any of such local
areas.

15. We may in this very context refer
to Section 179 Cr.P.C., according to which,
when an act is an offence by reason of
anything which has been done and of a
consequence which has ensued, the offence
may be inquired into or tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction such thing
has been done or such consequence has
ensued. Thus, consequence ensuing from
the commission of an offence can also give
territorial jurisdiction to a Court to inquire
or try an offence. Section 181 (4) Cr.P.C. is
relevant in the context of any offence of
criminal mis-appropriation or criminal
breach of trust as is alleged herein and
according to said provisions such an
offence may be inquired into or tried by a
court within whose local jurisdiction the
offence was committed or any part of the
property which is subject to the offence
was received or retained, or was required to
be returned or accounted for by the accused
persons.

16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid
provisions when we go through the
contents
of
the
FIR,
as
territorial
jurisdiction in the context of Section 156
Cr.P.C. read with provisions of Chapter-
XIII is to be determined on a reading of the
FIR itself and this Court cannot, at this
stage, when the FIR has been lodged barely
a few days ago i.e., on 26.01.2024 and
investigation is still pending, enter into the
material/evidence collected for determining
the aforesaid issue, we find that the
allegation is of forgery and fabricating a
board resolution dated 01.10.2022, which
3 All. Mukta Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1651
was drawn at Chandigarh, Punjab. Based
on the said resolution, it is alleged that the
petitioner no.1 along with other accused
executed 11 sale deeds in favour of several
persons some of whom are also accused
and the proceeds of such sale deeds were
not deposited wholly in the account of the
company, namely, Radiant Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd., instead a substantial part thereof was
misappropriated
and
the
same
was
deposited
either
by
online
transaction/cheques or in cash in various
accounts of the petitioners at Lucknow,
meaning thereby, the proceeds of crime as
alleged were transferred and retained at
Lucknow in the accounts held by the
petitioners. We are not concerned as to
whether the allegations are correct or not.
These questions cannot be gone into under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at
this stage, therefore, we have to determine
the issue of territorial jurisdiction on the
plain and simple reading of the FIR. In the
FIR, we find details of such accounts where
the sale considerations were deposited and
which, as alleged, belong to the petitioners,
have been given. Thus, not only there is
allegation of theft of sale deeds at Lucknow
which on a query being put to the counsel
for the informant though referred as
original sale deeds, is in fact a reference to
certified copies of such sale deeds but,
apart from it, the money received by the
petitioner and the other accused from the
sale deeds executed and registered by them
at Chandigarh, Punjab, allegedly on the
basis of forged and fabricated resolution of
the Board of Directors, was transferred to
the accounts of the petitioners and
deposited at Lucknow. Therefore, it is very
difficult to accept at this stage the
contention of Shri S. C. Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel that the FIR could not have
been lodged at P.S. Sarojni Nagar,
Lucknow, nor the Investigating Officer of
the said police station could inquire the
crime. Not only theft has been alleged at
Lucknow but the proceeds of crime based
on the forged and fabricated board
resolution dated 01.12.2022 have also been
deposited in the bank accounts of the
petitioners at Lucknow including the bank
of petitioner no.2, who is the wife of
petitioner no.1, though, not a director or
employee of the company referred here-inabove, in which the petitioner no.1 was a
director. As of now, it cannot be said that
the offence or the consequence ensuing
therefrom has not occurred within the
territorial jurisdiction of Police Station-
Sarojni Nagar, Lucknow and/or that the
same was not amenable to inquiry or trial
by the Court of competent criminal
jurisdiction in the District Court at
Lucknow having jurisdiction in respect of
the said police Station. Based on bare
reading of the FIR and the details contained
therein this argument is liable to be
rejected.

17. In arriving at this conclusion we,
inter alia, rely upon the decision rendered
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Lee Kun Hee & Ors vs State Of U.P.&
Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 132 wherein
their Lordships had the occasion to
consider the provisions of Section 179
Cr.P.C. Their Lordships have held that use
of the words "anything which has been
done"
and
"consequence
which
has
ensued"
in
Section
179
Cr.P.C.
substantially enlarges and magnifies the
scope of jurisdiction contemplated under
Section 179 Cr.P.C. so as to extend the
same over areas contemplated by the two
phrases. Under Section 179 Cr.P.C. even
the places (wherein the consequence of the
criminal act) "ensues" would be relevant to
determine
the
Court
of
competent
Jurisdiction. Therefore, even the Courts
1652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within
whose
local
jurisdiction
the
repercussion/effect of the criminal act
occurs would have jurisdiction in the
matter. In the said case a complainant was
holding the bill of exchange at Ghaziabad
in India, therefore, the Supreme Court
opined "that the consequence emerging out
of the denial of encashment of the bill of
exchange could be deemed to ensue at
Ghaziabad in India. As such the competent
Court at Ghaziabad India would have
jurisdiction in the matter under Section 179
Cr.P.C." In this very context, Supreme
Court considered the provisions of Section
181 (4) Cr.P.C., which in its opinion left no
room for any doubt that culpability is
relatable even to the place at which
consideration is required to be returned or
accounted for. In the case at hand, as
already stated, the proceeds of the alleged
crime were transferred and deposited in the
bank accounts of the petitioner at Lucknow
and were retained therein, therefore,
Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., according to which
any offence of criminal misappropriation or
of criminal breach of trust may be inquired
into or tried by a Court within whose local
jurisdiction the offence was committed or
any part of the property which is the
subject of the evidence was received or
retained, or was required to be returned or
account for by the accused persons, gets
attracted. Initial crime in this case, as
alleged, is the fabrication of board
resolution dated 01.12.2022 at Chandigarh,
based
thereon
the
execution
and
registration of sale deeds, by which flats
constructed by Radiant Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.
were
sold
off
by
the
petitioners
unauthorisedly in criminal breach of trust
and the proceeds therefrom were not
deposited in the company's account,
instead they were wholly or substantially or
partly deposited in their personal accounts
at Lucknow. This of course, is coupled with
the allegation of theft of the sale deeds at
Lucknow. The latter gives a cause of action
wholly at P.S.- Sarojni Nagar, whereas the
former would be covered under Section
179 Cr.P.C. and Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. at
least at this stage.

18. Thus, on a perusal of FIR it
cannot be said that no part of cause of
action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction
of
P.S.
Sarojni
Nagar
commissionerate of Lucknow. We may in
this context also refer to decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kushal
Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Mala
Gupta reported in (2011) 12 SCC 434.

19. This apart we may once again
refer to Section 156 (2) which categorically
provides that no proceeding of a police
officer, which obviously means proceeding
of investigation referred therein in subsection 1, in any such case shall at any
stage be called in question on the ground
that the case was one in which such officer
was not empowered under this Section to
investigate. We may in this context refer to
decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar vs State
Of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (2010) 1
SCC 1, wherein their Lordships of the
Supreme Court of India considered the said
provisions and opined that sub Section 2 of
Section 156 Cr.P.C. ensures that once an
investigation is commenced under sub
Section (1), the same is uninterrupted on
the ground that the police officer was not
empowered
under
the
Section
to
investigate. It is in the nature of "savings
clause"
in
respect
of
investigation
undertaken
in
respect
of
cognizable
offences. We may also refer to the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. Of N.C.T.
Of Delhi) And Anr. reported in (1999) 8
3 All. Mukta Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1653
SCC 728, wherein considering the same
provision it was inter-alia opined that subsection 2 of Section 156 makes the position
clear by providing that no proceeding of a
police officer in any such case shall at any
such stage be called in question on the
ground that the case was one in which such
officer was not empowered to investigate.
After investigation is completed, the result
of such investigation is required to be
submitted as provided under Sections 168,
169 and 170 Cr.P.C. Section 170 Cr.P.C.
specifically
provides
that
if,
upon
investigation, it appears to the officer in
charge of the police station that there is a
sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of
suspicion to justify the forwarding of the
accused to a magistrate, such officer shall
forward the accused under custody to a
magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of the offence upon a police report and to
try the accused or commit for trial. Further,
if the investigating officer arrives at the
conclusion
that
the
crime
was
not
committed within the territorial jurisdiction
of the police station, then FIR can be
forwarded to the police station having
jurisdiction over the area in which the
crime is committed. But this would not
mean that in a case which requires
investigation, the police officer can refuse
to record the FIR and/or investigate it. In
view of the above, Section 156 (2) Cr.P.C.
also comes in the way of the petitioner in
succeeding on the aforesaid account.

20. For all these reasons, the first
submission regarding lack of jurisdiction is
rejected, subject to what has already been
held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the case of Satvinder Kaur (supra), as
noticed above.

21. This is not a case where FIR has
been lodged against a company, but a case
where the FIR has been lodged against
individuals, one of whom is the Director.

22. As regards the second submission
that
dispute
is
essentially
of
civil/commercial nature, therefore, action
under criminal law is unwarranted, we do
not find any merit in this submission also
as allegations against the petitioner no.1 is
of having fabricating and forging a board's
resolution dated 01.10.2022 and based
thereon to have executed and registered
several sale deeds and thereby committing
offence of criminal breach of trust, as the
sale deed were in respect of flats which had
been constructed by the company namely
Radiant Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and there was
no authorization by the company in favour
of petitioner no.1 for selling of the said
flats. Moreover, it is also the allegation that
the
proceeds
of
said
crime
were
misappropriated by the petitioner no.1 by
transferring and depositing the same in his
bank account and that of his wife at
Lucknow.

23. Now, whether the allegations are
correct or not cannot be seen under Article
226 of the Constitution of India at this
stage as this is a matter of investigation,
unless, of course it was a case where it was
apparently incorrect and there could be no
two views about it. The contention of Shri
S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel in this
context that the petitioner no.1 had not
been paid the remuneration for quite some
time and there was a understanding
between the company and the petitioner
no.1 that he would be paid from the sale
receipts by sale of the aforesaid flats.

24. As regards the contention of Shri
S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel that
the company and the informants were all
along aware of the transactions being made
1654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the petitioner no.1 on behalf of the
company but no objection were raised and
the FIR has been lodged only on
26.01.2024, belatedly, merely because of
initiation of various proceedings by the
petitioner no.1 against the company and its
directors,
as
noticed
here-in-above,
therefore, it is a mala-fide action, Shri J.N.
Mathur, learned counsel for the informant
submitted that they came to know about the
board resolution dated 01.10.2022 only on
08.01.2024 and thereafter they issued
another public notice on 11.01.2024 and
also approached the police authorities
concerned who opined that a detailed
application would be required, setting out
in detail the events which had taken place,
constituting a crime whereupon a written
complaint was made and FIR was lodged
on 26.01.2024 and no advantage can be
taken by the petitioners merely on the
aforesaid ground. He submitted that even
after coming to know of the public notice
issued by the company the petitioner no.1
executed and got registered a sale deed as
is evident from the list of sale deeds
annexed with the writ petition but he has
cleverly not mentioned the date of
execution of such sale deed in favour of
Ms. Shalini Chaudhary which, in fact,
appears
to
have
been
executed
on
11.01.2024. In our opinion ground raised
by Shri S. C. Mishra, learned Senior
Counsel by itself cannot be the basis for its
quashing. This is a defence of the accused
petitioners and it is not for this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
go into these factual issues. We have gone
through the material on record relating to
the proceedings initiated by the petitioner
no.1 as already noticed in the earlier part of
the judgment but even these documents do
not persuade us to hold that it is a purely
civil or commercial dispute, considering
the allegations made in the FIR. We may in
this context refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lee
Kun Hee (supra) (para 73). We are of the
opinion that considering the nature of the
offence alleged to have been committed by
the petitioners, there can be civil liability
coupled
with
criminal
culpability.
Moreover,
considering
the
allegations
regarding forging and fabrication of board
resolution dated 01.10.2022 and also misappropriating the proceeds of sale deeds
executed based thereon it can give rise to
criminal culpability/liability also. Many of
the proceedings referred by Shri S. C.
Mishra,
learned
Senior
Counsel
are
unrelated to the allegations in the FIR. To
say that the aforesaid dispute is the
background which has led to false
implication does not cut much ice as of
now, unless the allegations are found to be
false during investigation. On a bare
reading of the FIR it cannot be said that the
offences alleged are not cognizable or are
not made out, at least at this stage. The
proceedings challenging the decision of
Board of Directors proposing to remove
him through petitioner no.1 from the post
of Director of the company would not
involve an inquiry or investigation into the
allegations of forgery and fabrication of the
board resolution or at least it would not
preclude an investigation by the police as,
if proved, this may amount to a criminal
offence. We, therefore, reject the second
submission also.

25. The third submission is with
regard to concealment of proceedings
referred by Shri S.C. Mishra, learned
Senior Counsel, which according to him,
were the background for filing of the FIR.
We do not find any substance in this
submission
also.
None
of
the
said
proceedings relied by Shri S. C. Mishra,
learned Senior Counsel and as recorded by
3 All. Dharmendra @ Bheema & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1655
us while noticing his arguments, have any
direct bearing on the allegations in the FIR
so as to preclude a criminal investigation
into such allegations or a judicial review of
validity of the FIR under challenge before
us. From a bare reading of the FIR it cannot
be said that no cognizable offence is made
out.

26. The explanation offered by Shri
S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel with
regard to deposit of one of the amounts in
the account of one of the purchasers who is
also an accused, i.e., Mr. Dhillon to the
effect that it was a loan extended by said
Mr.