# Ravi Mohan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 1334
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-31
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023
- **Bench:** Arvind Singh Sangwan, Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-mohan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52296
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

G.A., Subir Lal, Swetashwa Agarwal

Allegations of siphoning off of the funds, the
informant company and the companies of accused -
in a joint venture, have taken loan from DMI
Finance and raised the construction. As there are
allegations of forging documents and extending
threat to the Directors of the informant
company which are disputed by the accused on
basis of defence documents which cannot be
taken in consideration at this stage as well as
the F.I.R. qua accused cannot be quashed at
this stage. Informant company wanted to avoid
repayment of loan. Mediation proceedings
failed. Considering the facts, Criminal Misc. 5280
of 2023 as well as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 2140 of 2023 are decided. In the later
petition, the impugned order as well as the
impugned F.I.R. are quashed.

Whereas,
the
former
petition
stands
dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,951 of 87,201. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39951 for what follows._

1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court under relevant provision of law, if so
advised, on the subsequent facts, which
may be brought to the knowledge of the
court below.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 1334
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. AZHAR HUSAIN
IDRISI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023
And
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023

Ravi Mohan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Himadri Batra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Subir Lal, Swetashwa Agarwal

Allegations of siphoning off of the funds, the
informant company and the companies of accused -
in a joint venture, have taken loan from DMI
Finance and raised the construction. As there are
allegations of forging documents and extending
threat to the Directors of the informant
company which are disputed by the accused on
basis of defence documents which cannot be
taken in consideration at this stage as well as
the F.I.R. qua accused cannot be quashed at
this stage. Informant company wanted to avoid
repayment of loan. Mediation proceedings
failed. Considering the facts, Criminal Misc. 5280
of 2023 as well as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 2140 of 2023 are decided. In the later
petition, the impugned order as well as the
impugned F.I.R. are quashed.

Whereas,
the
former
petition
stands
dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy Vs Ramesh
Rangnathan & anr., (2022) 16 SCC 210

2. Lalit Chaturvedi & ors.Vs St. of Uttar Pradesh
& anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171

3. Maksud Saiyed Vs St. of Guj. & ors., (2008) 5
SCC 668

4. Thermax Limited & ors.Vs K.M. Johny & ors.,
(2011) 13 SCC 412

5. Priyanka Shrivastava & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2015) 6 SCC 287

6. Babu Venkatesh & ors.Vs St. of Karn. & ors.,
(2022) 5 SCC 639

7. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
355

8. Priti Saraf Vs St. ( NCT of Delhi) (2021) 16
SCC 142

9. Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs Rajesh
Agarwal & ors., (1999) 8 SCC 686

10. Court in Shri Krishna Agencies Vs St. of A.P.,
(2009) 1 SCC 69

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Singh
Sangwan, J.)

1. By this judgment, Criminal Misc.
5280 of 2023 as well as Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 2140 of 2023 are decided
as both the petitions arise out of same
impugned First Information Report dated
21.11.2022 registered as Case Crime No.
486 of 2022 at Police Station - Sector 113,
Commissionerate, Gautam Buddha Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh under Sections 406, 409,
420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of IPC as
well as the impugned order passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh
Nagar dated 17.12.2022 directing to
register the F.I.R.
8 All. Ravi Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1335

2. It is worth noticing that these
petitions are pending since 2023 and a
coordinate Bench of this Court reserved the
judgment
on
25.7.2023.
However,
subsequently on 25.9.2023, the case was
again relisted for arguments. Thereafter, the
case was listed before another Bench and
vide order dated 8.4.2024, the arrest of the
petitioners was stayed. On 27.7.2024, again
the case was listed before another Bench
which passed an order of rescuel and as per
the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated
29.7.2024, this case is directed to be listed
before this Bench.

3. Arguments were heard and
judgment was reserved on 22.08.2024.

4. It is also worth noticing that though
detailed petitions as well as detailed replies
have been filed relying upon the number of
documents and arguments were heard at
length from both the sides, however, in
view of the settled principle of law that a
petition for quashing of F.I.R. is to be
decided on the contents of the F.I.R., this
judgment is based upon the documents
relied upon by the informant as noticed in
the impugned order dated 17.12.2022
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gautam Buddh Nagar directing the police
to register the F.I.R. as well as the contents
of the F.I.R. and the affidavit filed by the
informant in response to the quashing
petitions.

5. Brief facts of the case are that the
informant-M/s Abhi Compusoft Private
Limited
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
"informant company") filed a complaint
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Buddh
Nagar. In the complaint, eight persons were
nominated as accused who are referred to
as A-1 to A-8 as per the memo of the
parties in the complaint as well as name of
the accused in the F.I.R. in the same
sequence.

6. The complaint which forms basis
of registration of the impugned F.I.R. reads
as under :

"न्यायालय श्रीमान अपर मुख्य न्याकयक मकजस्रेट
प्रथम, गौतमबुद्धनगर
प्राथटना-पत्र संख्या- 586/22 सन्-2022

हकषटत कसंह पुत्र स्व० श्री अजीत कसंह, कनवासी- फ्लैट
संख्या-1101, आनन्द टावर,गृह प्रवेश सोसायटी, सेक्टर-77,
नोएडा, जनपद गौतमबुद्धनगर (उ०प्र०)। ... प्राथी

बनाम

1. रकव मोहन सेठी, चेयरमैन ओमेगा इन्िोकवजन
प्रा०कल० स्टेलर ग्रुप, कनवासी- ए-44, सेक्टर-17, नोएडा,
गौतमबुद्धनगर (उ०प्र०)।

2. अक्षय मोहन सेठी पुत्र रकव मोहन सेठी, कनवासी-
ए-44, सेक्टर-17, नोएडा, गौतमबुद्धनगर (उ०प्र०)।

3. कहमांशू माथुर, पुत्र जसवन्त कुमार माथुर, पता
गोल्ि कलंक्स, वी-33, पाकेट-ए, महरौली, गाकजयाबाद (उ०प्र०)।

4. अरकवन्द कुमार कसंह, पुत्र सरजू प्रसाद कसंह, पता
एच-402, प्लाट संख्या-जीएच-02, स्टेलरजीवन, सेक्टर-1,
हबीबपुर, ग्रेटर नोएडा-वेस्ट, गौतमबुद्धनगर (उ०प्र०)।

5. कशवाशीष चटजी, पुत्र नामालूम, प्रकतकनकध
डी०एम०आई० िाइनेन्स कम्पनी प्रा०कल० एक्सप्रेसवे, कबकल्डंग
फ्लोर 9 व 10 बहादुर शाह जिर, मागट नई कदल्ली-110002

6. युवराज चाणक्य कसंह पुत्र नामालूम, प्रकतकनकध
डी०एम०आई० िाईनेन्स कम्पनी प्रा०कल०, एक्सप्रेसवे, कबकल्डंग
फ्लोर 9व 10 बहादुर शाह जिर, मागट नई कदल्ली-110002

7. कववेक गुप्ता, प्रकतकनकध डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स
कम्पनी प्रा०कल०, एक्सप्रेसवे, कबकल्डंग फ्लोर 9 व 10 बहादुर शाह
जिर, मागट नई कदल्ली 110002

8. पुकनन्दर भाकटया, प्रकतकनकध डी०एम०आई
िाइनेन्स कम्पनी प्रा०कल०,एक्सप्रेसवे, कबकल्डंग फ्लोर 9 व 10
बहादुर शाह जिर, मागट नई कदल्ली-110002
... अकभयुिगण
अं० धारा-406,409,420,467,
468,471,504,506 आईपी०सी०
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
थाना- सेक्टर-113,नोएडा।
प्राथटना-पत्र अन्तगटत धारा- 156(3)
सीआरपी०सी०ेः-
श्रीमान जी,
 कनवेदन है कक मैं प्राथी हकषटत कसंह, पुत्र स्व० श्री
अजीत कसंह, मैससट अभी कम्पूसाफ्ट प्रा०कल० का डायरेक्टर ह ूँ तथा
फ्लैट संख्या-1001, आनन्द टावर, गृह प्रवेश सोसायटी, सेक्टर77, नोएडा, कजला गौतमबुद्धनगर का कनवासी ह ूँ। प्राथी की कम्पनी
को माचट-2017 में स्क्वायर इन्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी ने 85
प्रकतशत शेयर आवंकटत ककये तथा तथा 10 प्रकतशत शेयर प्राथी की
कम्पनी के डायरेक्टर श्री अकभषेक यश त्यागी के पररकचत स्टेलर ग्रुप
के चेयरमैन श्री रकव. मोहन सेठी पुत्र नामालूम व अक्षय मोहन सेठी
पुत्र रकव मोहन सेठी कनवासी- ए-44, सेक्टर-17, नोएडा को भई
आवंकटत ककये तथा 05 प्रकतशत शेयर कम्पनी के पूवट कनदेशक श्री
कवजय कुमार जैन एवं श्री अररहन्त जैन के पास रहे। स्क्वायर
इऩ्फ्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी भू-खण्ड्ड संख्या-11 व 12 क्षेत्रिल
10002.50 वगट मीटर, सेक्टर-127, नोएडा की आवंटी थी।
स्क्वायर इन्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के 85 प्रकतशत शेयर
आवंकटत होने के बाद उि वकणटत भू-खण्ड्ड संख्या-11 व 12
क्षेत्रिल 10002.50 वगट मीटर, सेक्टर-127, नोएडा पर भी
प्राथी की कम्पनी ने कब्जा ले कलया, तभी उि भू-खण्ड्डों पर
आकिस कबकल्डंग प्रोजेक्ट बनाने हेतु रकव मोहन सेठी व अक्षय मोहन
सेठी द्वारा जाइन्ट वेन्चर के प्रस्ताव के साथ श्री अकभषेक यश त्यागी
से मुलाकात की गयी। उन्होंने बताया कक उनके ग्रुप को इस कायट में
महारत हाकसल है और उनके पाटटनर डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स
प्रा०कल० एक्सप्रेस कबकल्डंग, थडट फ्लोर, 9-10, बहादुर शाह जिर
मागट, नई कदल्ली-110002, से लोन भी कमल सकता है यकद
उनकी कुछ शते मान ली जायें। तभी डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स
प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के अकधकृत प्रकतकनकध कशवाशीष चटजी पुत्र
नामालूम, युवराज चाणक्य कसंह पुत्र नामालूम, कववेक गुप्ता पुत्र
नामालूम व पुकनन्दर भाकटया पुत्र नामालूम ने साकजश करके रकव
मोहन सेठी, अक्षय मोहन सेठी, कहमांशी माथुर के साथ कमली-भगत
करके रकव मोहन सेठी एवं अक्षय मोहन सेठी के माध्यम से श्री
अकभषेक यश त्यागी को यह कवश्वास कदलाया कक यकद बैंककंग के
अकधकृत हस्ताक्षरी व मैससट स्क्वायर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के बोडट
मैनेजमेन्ट के समस्त अकधकार स्टेलर ग्रुप की मैसेसट ओमेगा
इन्िोकवजन को दे कदये जायें, तो डी०एम०आई िाईनेन्स कम्पनी 55
करोड रूपये का लोन दे देगी, कजसकी वापसी का प्रबन्ध भी स्टेलर
ग्रुप द्वारा ककया जायेगा, प्रोजेक्ट के पहली िेज का कनमाटण 18 माह
में पूणट ककया जायेगा, कनमाटण के दौरान ही बडी-बडी कम्पकनयों को
चढ़वाने के एग्रीमेंट करवाने का कबजनस प्लान कदया गया तथा इस
िेज की कबकल्डंग से ही 2 करोड रूपये प्रकत माह की आमदनी का
प्रलोभन भी कदया गया। श्री अकभषेक यश त्यागी ने इन लोगों की
बात पर कवश्वास कर कलया और स्टेलर ग्रुप की कम्पनी ओमेगा
इन्िोकवजन प्रा०कल० व स्क्वायर इन्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० के साथ
कदनांक 23.05.2018 को शेयर होल्डसट एग्रीमेन्ट कनष्पाकदत
ककया, कजसमें प्राथी की कम्पनी ने स्टेलर ग्रुप की कम्पनी ओमेगा
इन्िोकवजन प्रा०कल० को उि भू-खण्ड्ड पर कबकल्डंग बनाने हेतु
डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० से लोन लेने की बातचीत प्रारम्भ
करने एवं आगे की कायटवाही करने हेतु अकधकृत ककया, कम्पनी का
मेनेजमेंट कदया तथा कनमाटण के कलए कान्रेक्टर तय करने का
अकधकार कदया। इसी क्रम में रकव मोहन सेठी, अक्षय मोहन सेठी,
कहमांशु, माथुर, अरकवन्द कुमार कसं व डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स
प्रा०कल० के अकधकृत प्रकतकनकधयों कशवाशीष चटजी, युवराज
चाणक्य कसंह, कववेक गुप्ता व पुकनन्दर भाकटया के आश्वासनो पर श्री
अकभषेक यश त्यागी ने अपनी अभी कम्पूसाफ्ट प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के
85 प्रकतशत शेयर होल्डर होने के बावजूद भी 10 प्रकतशत शेयर
होल्डर सेट्लर ग्रुप की कम्पनी ओमेगा इन्िोकवजन प्रा०कल० के
चेयरमैने रकव मोहन सेठी व कनदेशक अक्षय मोहन सेठी के कहने पर
कहमांशु माथुर व अरकवन्द कुमार कसंह को स्क्वायर इन्रास्रक्चर
प्रा०कल० के समस्त अकधकार दे कदये, तभी रकव मोहन सेठी, अक्ष्य
मोहन सेठी, कहमांशु माथुर, अरकवन्द कुमार कसंह व डी०एम०आई
िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० के अकधकृत प्रकतकनकधयों कशवाशीष चटजी,
युवराज चाणक्य कसंह, कववेक गुप्ता व पुकनन्दर भाकटया ने एक िजी
एवं कूटरकचत दस्तावेज डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० कम्पनी का
िाइनल सेंक्शन लेटर कदनांककत 02.05.2018 तैयार ककया तथा
एक िजी एवं कूटरकचत वकट आडटर कदनांक 02.04.2018 की
कतकथ में तैयार करके मैससट की-स्टोन डवलपसट प्रा०कल० को
53,55,70,000/- रूपये में कबकल्डंग बनाने का कान्रेक्ट तय
करके एक िजी एवं कूटररचत पत्र जारी कर कदया, कजसकी जानकारी
प्राथी को तब हुई जब इन लोगो ने एग्रीमेन्ट के अनुसार कायट नही
ककया। स्टेलर ग्रुप के कनदेशक रकव मोहन सेठी, अक्षय मोहन सेठी,
कहमांशु माथुर व अरकवन्द कुमार कसंह ने वषट 2018 में ही कोटेक
मकहन्रा बैंक, सेक्टर-16, नोएडा में खाता खोला तथा
डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० कम्पनी से माचट-2020 तक 58
करोड रूपये उि खाते में कवकभन्न ककस्तों में रांसिर कराया तथा
कसतम्बर, अक्टूबर 2021 में भारत सरकार द्वारा कोकवड-19
महामारी के दौरान शुरु की गयी ई०सी०एल०जी०एस० स्कीम
(इमरजेन्सी क्रेकडट लाइन गारण्ड्टी स्कीम) के तहत 09 करोड 80
लाख रूपये अकतररि उि कोटेक मकहन्रा बैंक खाते में
डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० कम्पनी से रांसिर करा कलये। उि
8 All. Ravi Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1337
मोहन सेठी, अक्षय मोहन सेठी, कहमांशु माथुर व अरकवन्द कुमार
कसंह ने कबकल्डंग बनाने का कायट पूरा नही ककया, जो कक उनको 18
महीने में पूरा करना था तथा िजी कागजात तैयार करके नोएडा
प्राकधकरण से कम्पलीशन प्रमाण - पत्र भी ले कलया तथा 67 करोड
80 लाख रूपये डी०एम०आई िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० से प्राप्त कर
कलया। प्राथी को ज्ञात हुआ कक मैससट की-स्टोन डवलपसट प्रा०कल०
के एम०डी० रकव मोहन सेठी व डायरेक्टर कहमांशु माथुर ही हैं तथा
कहमांशु माथुर व अक्षय मोहन सेठी सागर टेक्नोकसटी प्रा०कल०
कम्पनी के डायरेक्टर हैं तथा सागर टेक्नोकसटी प्रा०कल० में स्टेलर ग्रुप
व डी०एम०आई ग्रुप आपस में पाटटनर हैं। लोन की शतो के अनुसार
मैससट की-स्टोन प्रा०कल० अथवा डी०एम०आई िाईनेन्स प्रा०कल०
को लोन से प्राप्त धनराकश से कोई भी भुगतान नही ककया जा सकता
था परन्तु डी०एम०आई िाईनेन्स प्रा०कल० एवं स्टेलर ग्रुप के इन
लोगों की कमलीभगत से यह घपला होता रहा। डी०एम०आई
िाइनेन्स प्रा०कल० के प्रकतकनकध कशवाशीष चटजी, युवराज चाणक्य
कसंह, कववेक गुप्ता, पुकनन्दर भाकटया, रकव मोहन सेठी, अक्षय मोहन
सेठी, कहमांशु माथुर व अरकवन्द कुमार कसंह ने साकजश करके िजी
एवं कूटरकचत दस्तावेज तैयार करके 67 करोड 80 लाख रूपये
स्क्वायर इन्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के खाते में रांसिर करके
गबन कर कलया है तथा एग्रीमेंटके अनुसार कबकल्डंग का कायट पूरा
नही ककया है। इन लोगों की शुरु से ही बुरी कनयत प्राथी की कम्पनी
की जमीन हडपने की थी और इनकी कमलीभगत के तहत रकव मोहन
सेठी ने कबना लोन के कडिाल्ट हुऐ जमीन हडपने के कलए अपनी
ओर से ही अपने पाटटनर डी०एम०आई प्रा०कल० को पत्र कलख कदया
कजससे इनकी मंशा साि कदखाई पडती है। जब प्राथी ने कदनांक
05.11.2022 को इनसे कहा कक आपने 67 करोड 80 लाख
रूपये कहां खचट ककये हैं, क्योंकक कबकल्डंग अभी अधूरी है, तो इन्होंने
प्राथी को जाने से मारने व बुरा अंजाम भुगतने की धमकी दी,
कजसकी सूचना प्राथी ने तुरन्त थाना हाजा पर दी, ककन्तु उन्होंने कोई
कायटवाही नही की, कजससे प्राथी व उसके पररवार को जान माल का
खतरा उत्पन्न हो गया है। प्राथी द्वारा श्रीमान पुकलस आयुि
गौतमबुद्धनगर को भी एक प्राथटना-पत्र रकजस्टडट डाक के माध्यम से
प्रेकषत ककया गया, ककन्तु उस पर भी कोई कायटवाही नही की गई है।
कववश होकर प्राथी माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष प्राथटना-पत्र प्रस्तुत
कर रहा है।

अतः श्रीमान जी से कवनम्र कनवेदन है कक स्टेलर ग्रुप
की कम्पनी ओमेगा इन्िोकवजन प्रा०कल० के चेयरमैने रकव मोहन
सेठी, अक्ष्य मोहन सेठी, कहमांशू माथुर, अरकवन्द कुमार कसंह व
डी०एम०आई िाईनेन्स कम्पनी के कशवाशीष चटजी, युवराज
चाणक्य कसंह, कववेक गुप्ता व पुकनन्दर भाकटया के कवरुद्ध िजी एवं
कूटरकचत दस्तावेज तैयार करके 67 करोड 80 लाख रूपये हडपने
व प्राथी को जान से मारने की धमकी देने के जुमट में प्राथी की ररपोटट
दजट कर कानूनी कायटवाही करने की कृपा करें।
कदनांकः- 13/12/2022

प्राथी
हकषटत कसंह "

7. The Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar on
17.12.2022 passed the following order :

"कदनांकः 17-12-2022

पत्रावली पेश हुई। प्राथटना पत्र अन्तगटत धारा-
156(3) दं०प्रसं० पर आवेदक के कवद्वान अकधविा को पूवट कनयत
कतकथ सुना गया। पत्रावली का
सम्यक अवलोकन ककया।

आवेदक हकषटत कसंह द्वारा प्राथटना पत्र मय शपथ-पत्र
अन्तगटत धारा-156(3) दं०प्र०सं० में संक्षेपतयह कथन ककया गया
है कक प्राथी हकषटत कसंह मैससट अभी कम्पूसाफ्ट प्रा०कल० का
डायरेक्टर ह ूँ। प्राथी की कम्पनी को माचट-2017 में स्क्वायर
इन्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी ने 85 प्रकतशत शेयर आवंकटत ककये
तथा 10 प्रकतशत शेयर प्राथी की कम्पनी के डायरेक्टर श्री अकभषेक
यश त्यागी के पररकचत स्टेलर ग्रुप के चेयरमैने श्री रकव मोहन सेठी
पुत्र नामूलम व अक्षय मोहन सेठी पुत्र रकव मोहन सेठी कनवासी-ए44, सैक्टर 17, नोएडा को भी आवंकटत ककये तथा 05 प्रकतशत
शेयर कम्पनी के पूवट कनदेशक श्री कवजय कुमार जैन एवं श्री अररहन्त
जैन के पास रहे। प्राथी की कम्पनी ने कब्जा ले कलया, तभी उि भू-
खण्ड्डों पर आकिस कबकल्डंग प्रोजेक्ट बनाने हेतु रकव मोहन सेठी व
अक्षय मोहन सेठी द्वारा जाइन्ट वेन्चर के प्रस्ताव के साथ श्री
अकभषेक यश त्यागी से मुलाकात की गयी व मैससट स्क्वायर
प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के बोडट मैनेजमेन्ट के समस्त अकधकार स्टेलर ग्रुप
की मैससट ओमेगा इन्िोकवजन को दे कदये। स्टेलर ग्रुप की कम्पनी
ओमेगा इन्िोकवजन प्रा०कल० व स्कवायर इन्रास्र्क्चर प्रा०कल०
कम्पनी के साथ कदनांक 25.05.2018 को शेयर होल्डसट एग्रीमेन्ट
कनष्पाकदत ककया, कजसमें प्राथी की कम्पनी ने स्टेलर ग्रुप की कम्पनी
ओमेगा इन्िोकवजन प्रा०कल० को उि भू-खण्ड्ड पर कबकल्डंग बनाने
हेतु डी०एम०आई िाईनेन्स प्रा०कल० से लोन लेने की बातचीत
प्रारम्भ करने एवं आगे की कायटवाही करने हेतु अकधकृत ककया।
कम्पनी का िाइनल सेक्शन लेटर कदनांककत 02.05.2018 तैयार
ककया तथा एक िजी एवं कूटरकचत वकट आडटर कदनांक
02.04.2018 की कतकथ में तैयार करके मैससट की-स्टोन
डवलपसट प्राकधकरण को 53,55,70,000/रूपये में कबकल्डंग
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
बनाने का कान्रेक्ट तय करके एक िजी एवं कूटरकचत पत्र जारी कर
कदया। एवं साकजश करके िजी एवं कूटरकचत दस्तावेज तैयार करके
67 करोड 80 लाख रूपये इन्रास्रक्चर प्रा०कल० कम्पनी के खाते
में रांसिर करके गबन कर कलया है तथा एग्रीमेंट के अनुसार कबकल्डंग
का कायट पूरा नही ककया है।

संबंकधत थाने की आख्या के अनुसार प्राथटना पत्र
अन्तगटत धारा-156(3) दं०प्र०सं० में ककथत तथ्यों के सन्दभट में
कोई अकभयोग पंजीकृत नही है।

िथन िे समथजन में वादी िे आधार िाडज िी
छाया प्रकत व पुकलस आयुक्त िो कदये गये प्राथजनापत्र िी छाया
प्रकत व रकजस्टडज डाि िी रसीद, शेयर होजडसज एग्रीमेन्ट कदनांि
23.05.18 िी प्रकतकलकप िाईनेन्स सेक्शन लेटसज कदनांि
2.05.2018 िी प्रकतकलकप िी स्टोन डवलपसज प्रा०कल० िो
जारी विज आडजर कदनांि 2.04.18 िी प्रकतकलकप, बैंि
स्टेटमेन्ट व इत्याकद दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं।

प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्राथी द्वारा प्राथटना -पत्र में ककए गए
अकभकथनों से प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रथम दृष्टया संज्ञेय अपराध के तत्व
उद्घकटत होता है। मामले में प्रथम सुचना ररपोटट पंजीकृत कराकर
कववेचना कराया जाना न्यायोकचत एवं कवकधसम्मत प्रतीत हो रहा है।
तद्नुसार प्राथी द्वारा प्राथटनापत्र अन्तगटत धारा 156(3) दण्ड्ड प्रकक्रया
संकहता स्वीकार ककए जाने योग्य है।
आदेश
 आवेदक द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्राथटनापत्र अन्तगटत धारा-
156(3) दण्ड्ड प्रकक्रया संकहता स्वीकार ककया जाता सबबकन्धत
थानाध्यक्ष, थाना-सैक्टर-113, नोएडा को आदेकशत ककया जाता
है कक वह प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में सुसंगत धाराओं में अकभयोग पंजीकृत
कर कवकधनुसार अन्वेषण कराना सुकनकश्चत करेेे। आदेश िे
अनुपालन िी सूिना अन्दर सात कदवस न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत
िरे"

8. Two sets of petitioners i.e. A-1 to
A-4 have filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 5280 of 2023 and A-5 to A-8 have
filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2140
of 2023. Counter affidavits on behalf of
informant company are also filed. Both the
parties have also submitted their written
submissions.

9.

Heard
Sri
Gopal
Swaroop
Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate, Sri
Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Vipul Ganda and Mr.
Vinayak Mittal, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 2140 of 2023 and Sri Manish Tiwari
assisted by Ms. Himadri Batra, learned
counsel for the petitioners in Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 5280 of 2023. We
have also heard Mr. Swetashwa Agarwal
and Sri Subir Lal, learned counsel for the
informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

10. Learned Senior counsel for the
petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 2140 of 2023 has argued that petitioner
(A-5) is the Vice President of DMI Finance
Private Limited (herein after referred to as
'DMI/lender company'). Petitioners (A-6 to
A-8) are the Joint Managing Directors,
Head of real estate of the lender company.

11.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 5280 of 2023 has submitted that
petitioner (A-1) is the Director of Omega
Infovision Private Limited and Chairman of
Stellar Group. Whereas petitioners (A-2 to
A-4) are the are the former Directors of
Square
Infrastructure
Private
Limited
(Borrower Company).

12. The undisputed facts as emerged
from the F.I.R. are as under :

A. The informant company took
over 85% shareholding of M/s Square
Infrastructure Private Limited in the name
of M/s Abhi Compusoft Private Limited.
10% shares were allotted to (A-1) who was
Director, Omega Infovision Private Limited
and Chairman of Stellar Group and
remaining 5% shares remained with the
former
Directors
of
M/s
Square
Infrastructure
Company
Limited
i.e.
Arihant Jain and Vijay Kumar Jain. The
Company- Square Infrastructure Private
Limited was allotted plot No. 11 & 12
8 All. Ravi Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1339
having area of 10002.50 sq. metres in
Sector 127, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh.

B. Informant company and the
accused in their capacity of office bearers
of their respective company came with a
proposal of joint venture of construction for
which, the DMI/lender company agreed to
provide finance.

C. A work order dated 2.4.2018
was
executed
and
M/s
Keystone
Developers Private Limited (Contractor
Company) was allotted the work order and
amount
of
Rs.53,55,70,000/-
for
construction of the building on the name of
Square
Infrastructure
Private
Limited
(Borrower Company).

D. On 23.5.2018, a share holders
agreement as relied upon by informant in
the impugned order and F.I.R. was entered
into between the parties for construction of
building.

A sanction letter dated 2.5.2018
of DMI Finance was also executed between
informant company and (A-1 to A-8) who
also signed a formal agreement on
23.5.2018 and the aforesaid amount was
transferred in favour of the borrower
company. The work order was to be
executed by the contractor company.

E. It is also an admitted case that
during construction period, due to Covid
19, the government floated an Emergency
Credit Line Guarantee Scheme (hereinafter
referred to as 'ECLGS') and additional
amount of Rs.9,80,00,000/- was transferred
by DMI Finance in the account of the
creditor company as per a subsequent loan
agreement
dated
28.06.2021
executed
between the parties.

13. The F.I.R. has been registered on
the following grounds :

(i) In premeditated conspiracy
hatched by DMI/ Lender Company and the
Contractor Company, the work order was
awarded to their subsidiary company even
before the formal loan agreement was
signed with the informant company and
undue benefit has been given to the creditor
company.

(ii) Sanction letter dated 2.4.2018
is also a forged document as the work order
has been allotted prior to the sanctioning of
the loan.

(iii) The amount of loan under the
agreement dated 23.5.2018 was transferred
to Omega Infovision Priviate Limited
which is a subsidiary of Stellar Group and
the same is in violation of the clause in the
loan agreement "End Use Restriction"
which mandated that funds are to be used
for
the
project
construction
and
development only.

(iv) Despite transfer of additional
funds
by
DMI
Finance,
no
actual
construction was performed at the project
site and the additional amount was
misappropriated by the lender company.

(v) Threats were extended to
Directors of the informant company.

14. In view of the facts as noticed
from the F.I.R. itself, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners (A-5 to A-8) has
argued that the accused persons are in fact
Managing
Director/Directors
of
DMI
Finance which has parted away huge
amount of money to the creditor company
and with a mala fide intention not to repay
the loan, the present F.I.R. has been
registered by the informant company
though the construction has been completed
and the completion certificate has been
issued by NOIDA Development Authority
and it is admitted case of the informant
company that the possession of the plot was
handed over to the informant company at
the time of transfer of 85% shares as stated
in the F.I.R. itself.
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Reliance is placed upon the
photograph of the projects wherein specific
stand is taken by the petitioner that
informant company itself is having its
office on the entire seventh floor of the
building which stands completed.

16. It is thus argued that the allegation
in the F.I.R. that the amount financed by
DMI Finance which belong to (A-5 to A-8)
was never used for construction of the
building which was still lying incomplete,
is palpably wrong as the informant
company has adopted a novel method not
to repay the loan amount by invoking the
criminal
proceedings
against
the
petitioners.

17. It is next argued that the second
ground taken in the F.I.R. that the work order
was issued prior to the sanctioning of the loan,
do not not disclose commission of any offence
as present F.I.R. has been registered only after
completion of the construction. It is submitted
that it is only after the work order was allotted,
the cost of construction was estimated, and
thereafter the loan got sanctioned with the
consent of the informant company.

18. Learned counsel has referred to
the sanction letter dated 2.4.2018 and
agreement dated 23.5.2018 relied upon by
the informant itself in the F.I.R. to submit
that the same has been signed by the
authorized representative of informant
company as well. It is argued that once this
agreement was acted upon between the
parties and the construction was raised with
the
consent
of
the
informant,
the
registration of the F.I.R. with the allegation
that this agreement is an outcome of fraud,
is patently wrong.

19. It is next argued that allegation
that DMI Finance has sanctioned the loan
on higher rate of interest i.e. 16% also does
not constitute any offence as rate of interest
was agreed on between the parties. It is
submitted that the DMI Finance is a non
banking finance company and the rate of
interest was agreed between the parties
under a written agreement for which, the
informant has civil rights.

20. It is next argued that from the bare
perusal of the F.I.R., no offence under
Section 420 of IPC is made out as DMI
Finance has only advanced loan which has
to be repaid by the informant company,
once the same has been utilized by the
informant company and construction is
completed. No offence under Sections 406
& 409 of IPC is made out.

21. It is also argued that even no
offence under Sections 467, 468 & 471 of
IPC is made out as allegation that the work
order dated 2.4.2018 was issued by Square
Infrastructure
Private
Limited
to
its
subsidiary
Stellar
Group
called
M/s
Keystone
Developer
as
a
contractor
whereas
shareholder
agreement
was
executed on 23.5.2018 also do not
constitute any such offence. The work
order dated 2.4.2018 was within the
knowledge of the informant company
which executed the shareholder agreement
on 23.5.2018.

22. It is submitted that after the
construction has been completed, the
informant
company
cannot
raise
an
argument that work order dated 2.4.2018 is
a forged document as completion certificate
is admittedly issued by the Authority.

23. The Counsel further submits that
offence under Section 504 & 506 of IPC
are also not made out as there are general
allegations
of
passing
derogatory
or
8 All. Ravi Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1341
insulting comments or extending threat to
the informant and these allegations do not
relate to (A-5 to A-8).

24. It is next argued that there is
arbitration
clause
11.1
in
the
loan
agreement which is executed by the
borrower company, guarantors, promoters
as well as the DMI Finance. Clause 11.1
clearly provides that any dispute arising out
of the agreement will be referred to sole
arbitrator to be appointed by the lender
company.

25. It is submitted that a purely
commercial transaction is converted into
criminal litigation just to put pressure on
the petitioners.

26. Learned counsel has referred to
the judgment of the Supreme Court in
M.N.G. Bharateesh Reddy vs. Ramesh
Rangnathan and another, (2022) 16 SCC
210 wherein the Supreme Court has held as
under :

"12. The ingredients of the
offence of cheating are spelt out in
Section 415 of the IPC. Section 415 is
extracted below:

"415. Cheating - Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit 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, is said to
"cheat". Explanation - A dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within
the meaning of this section."

13. The ingredients of the offence
under Section 415 emerge from a textual
reading. Firstly, to constitute cheating, a
person must deceive another. Secondly, by
doing so the former must induce the person
so deceived to :

(i) deliver any property to any
person; or (ii) to consent that any person
shall
retain
any
property;
or
(iii)
intentionally induce the person so deceived
to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived and such an act or omission must
cause or be likely to cause damage or harm
to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property.

14. Section 420 deals with
cheating
and
dishonestly
inducing
delivery of property. It reads as follows:

"420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing delivery of property - Whoever
cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to
any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and
which is capable of being capable of
converting into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine."

15. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad
Verma v. State of Bihar4 , a two-judge
bench of this Court interpreted sections
415 and 420 of IPC to hold that fraudulent
or dishonest intention is a precondition to
constitute the offence of cheating. The
relevant extract from the judgment reads
thus:

"14. On a reading of the section
it is manifest that in the definition there are
set forth two separate classes of acts which
the person deceived may be induced to do.
In the first place he may be induced
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any
property to any person. The second class of
acts set forth in the section is the doing or
omitting to do anything which the person
deceived would not do or omit to do if he
were not so deceived. In the first class of
cases the inducing must be fraudulent or
dishonest. In the second class of acts, the
inducing must be intentional but not
fraudulent or dishonest.

15. In determining the question it
has to be kept in mind that the distinction
between mere breach of contract and the
offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends
upon the intention of the accused at the
time of inducement which may be judged by
his subsequent conduct but for this
subsequent 4 (2000) 4 SCC 168 4 conduct
is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract
cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for
cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of
the transaction, that is the time when the
offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore it is the intention which is the
gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty
of cheating it is necessary to show that he
had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the
time of making the promise. From his mere
failure to keep up promise subsequently
such a culpable intention right at the
beginning, that is, when he made the
promise cannot be presumed." (emphasis
supplied)

16. In Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar
Singh5 a two-judge bench of this Court
held that a dispute arising out of a breach
of contract would not amount to an offence
of cheating under section 415 and 420. The
relevant extract is as follows:

"9. The ingredients of Section
420 of the Penal Code are: "(i) Deception
of any persons; (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."

10. The High Court, therefore,
should have posed a question as to whether
any act of inducement on the part of the
appellant has been raised by the second
respondent and whether the appellant had
an intention to cheat him from the very
inception. If the dispute between the parties
was essentially a civil dispute resulting
from a breach of contract on the part of the
appellants by non-refunding the amount of
advance the same would not constitute an
offence of cheating. Similar is the legal
position in respect of an offence of criminal
breach of trust having regard to its
definition contained in Section 405 of the
Penal Code. (See Ajay Mitra v. State of
M.P. [(2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
703])" (emphasis supplied)

17.
Applying
the
above
principles, the ingredients of Sections 415
and 420 are not made out in the present
case. The grievance of the first respondent
arises from the termination of his services
at the hospital. The allegations indicate
that there was an improper billing in
respect of the surgical services which were
rendered by the complainant at the
hospital. At the most, the allegations allude
to a breach of terms of the Consultancy
Agreement by the Appellant, which is
essentially in the nature of a civil dispute.

18.
The
allegations
in
the
complaint are conspicuous by the absence
of any reference to the practice of any
deception or dishonest intention on behalf
of the Appellant. Likewise, there is no
allegation that the complainant was as a
consequence
induced
to
deliver
any
property or to consent that any person shall
retain any property or that he was deceived
to do or omit to do anything which he
8 All. Ravi Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1343
would have not done or omitted to do if he
was not so deceived. The conspicuous
aspect of the complaint which needs to be
emphasized is that the ingredients of the
offence of cheating are absent in the
averments as they stand.

19. Section 405 of the IPC deals
with criminal breach of trust and reads as
follows:

"405. Criminal breach of trust -
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property
in
any
direction
of
law
prescribing the mode in which such trust is
to be discharged, or of any legal contract,
express or implied, which he has made 5
(2009) 14 SCC 696 5 touching the
discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers
any other person so to do, commits
"criminal breach of trust"." The offence of
criminal breach of trust contains two
ingredients: (i) entrusting any person with
property, or with any dominion over
property; and (ii) the person entrusted
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to
his own use that property to the detriment
of the person who entrusted it.

20.
In
Anwar
Chand
Sab
Nanadikar v. State of Karnataka6 a twojudge
bench
restated
the
essential
ingredients of the offence of criminal
breach of trust in the following words:

"7. The basic requirement to
bring home the accusations under Section
405 are
the
requirements
to prove
conjointly (1) entrustment, and (2) whether
the accused was actuated by the dishonest
intention or not misappropriated it or
converted it to his own use to the detriment
of the persons who entrusted it. As the
question of intention is not a matter of
direct proof, certain broad tests are
envisaged which would generally afford
useful guidance in deciding whether in a
particular case the accused had mens rea
for the crime."

21. In Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State
of West Bengal7 another two-judge bench
held that entrustment of property is pivotal
to constitute an offence under section 405
of the IPC. The relevant extract reads as
follows:

"28. "Entrustment" of property
under Section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860
is pivotal to constitute an offence under
this. The words used are, "in any manner
entrusted with property". So, it extends to
entrustments of all kinds whether to clerks,
servants,
business
partners
or
other
persons, provided they are holding a
position
of
"trust".
A
person
who
dishonestly
misappropriates
property
entrusted to them contrary to the terms of
an obligation imposed is liable for a
criminal breach of trust and is punished
under Section 406 of the Penal Code."

22. None of the ingredients of the
offence of criminal breach of trust have
been demonstrated on the allegations in the
complaint
as
they
stand.
The
first
respondent alleges that the Appellant
caused breach of trust by issuing grossly
irregular bills, which adversely affected his
professional fees. However, an alleged
breach of the contractual terms does not
ipso facto constitute the offence of the
criminal breach of trust without there being
a clear case of entrustment. No element of
entrustment
has
been
prima
facie
established based on the facts and
circumstances of the present matter.
Therefore, the ingredients of the offence of
criminal breach of trust are ex facie not
made out on the basis of the complaint as it
stands."
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. Reliance has also been placed on
the decision in Lalit Chaturvedi and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171,
wherein, the Supreme Court has held as
under :

5. This Court, in a number of
judgments, has pointed out the clear
distinction between a civil wrong in the
form of breach of contract, non-payment of
money or disregard to and violation of the
contractual terms; and a criminal offence
under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC.
Repeated judgments of this Court, however,
are somehow overlooked, and are not being
applied and enforced. We will be referring
to
these
judgments.
The
impugned
judgment dismisses the application filed by
the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. on the ground of delay/laches and also
the factum that the chargesheet had been
filed on 12.12.2019. This ground and
reason is also not valid.

6. In
"Mohammed
Ibrahim v. State of Bihar"4, this Court had
referred to Section 420 of the IPC, to
observe that in order to constitute an
offence under the said section, the
following ingredients are to be satisfied:-

"18. Let us now examine whether
the ingredients of an offence of cheating
are made out. The essential ingredients of
the offence of "cheating" are as follows:

(i) deception of a person either by
making
a
false
or
misleading
representation or by dishonest concealment
or by any other act or omission;

(ii)
fraudulent
or
dishonest
inducement of that person to either deliver
any property or to consent to the retention
thereof by any person or to intentionally
induce that person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do
or omit if he were not so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission causing
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or
property.

19. To constitute an offence
under section 420, there should not only
be cheating, but as a consequence of such
cheating,
the
accused
should
have
dishonestly induced the person deceived

(i) to deliver any property to any
person, or

(ii) to make, alter or destroy
wholly or in part a valuable security (or
anything signed or sealed and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable
security)."

7. Similar elucidation by this
Court in "V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat"5,
explicitly states that a contractual dispute
or breach of contract per se should not
lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding.
The ingredient of 'cheating', as defined
under Section 415 of the IPC, is existence
of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of
making initial promise or representation
thereof, from the very beginning of the
formation of contract. Further, in the
absence of the averments made in the
complaint
petition
wherefrom
the
ingredients of the offence can be found out,
the High Court should not hesitate to
exercise
its
jurisdiction
under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C. saves the inherent power of the
High Court, as it serves a salutary
purpose viz. a person should not undergo
harassment of litigation for a number of
years, when no criminal offence is made
out. It is one thing to say that a case has
been made out for trial and criminal
proceedings should not be quashed, but
another thing to say that a person must
undergo a criminal trial despite the fact
that no offence has been made out in the
complaint. This Court in V.Y. Jose (supra)
8 All. Ravi Mohan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1345
placed reliance on several earlier decisions
in "Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI"6,
"Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India
Ltd."7,
"Vir
Prakash
Sharma v. Anil
Kumar Agarwal"8 and "All Cargo Movers
(I) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain"9.

8. Having
gone
through
the
complaint, which was registered as an FIR
and the assertions made therein, it is quite
clear that respondent no. 2/complainant -
Sanjay Garg's grievance is regarding
failure of the appellants to pay the
outstanding amount, in spite of the
respondent no. 2/complainant - Sanjay
Garg's repeated demands. The respondent
no. 2/complainant - Sanjay Garg states that
the supplies were made between the period
01.12.2015 and 06.08.2017. The appellants
had made the payments from time to time of
Rs. 3,76,40,553/- leaving a balance of Rs.
1,92,91,358/-.

9.