New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a cheating and forgery case against the directors and former directors of a private company, saying the investigation is at a nascent stage.
The court rejected the plea of the accused, including Managing Director of KJS Cement (I) Ltd Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, seeking to quash the second FIR registered against them on the ground that majority of the allegations were repetitive and both the FIRs were identical.
The high court opined that the second FIR, which was sought to be quashed, was based on a different set of facts that have come to light after filing of the earlier FIR.
"The investigation is at a nascent stage... This court is of the opinion that the scope of both the FIRs are different and only background facts in the two FIRs, which trace the history of the dispute, are common.
"The fact that there is some overlap between the two FIRs does not mean that they arise out of the same cause of action and, therefore, the second FIR would not be maintainable. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed," Justice Subramonium Prasad said in a judgement passed on October 29.
The second FIR has been registered on the complaint by Himangini Singh, who is the daughter of Late KJS Ahluwalia, the deceased brother of Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia. Singh was represented by advocate Vijay Aggarwal in the case.
The court said the first FIR was primarily regarding alleged fabrication of documents for ousting the complainant, who is the niece of Pawan Kumar Ahluwalia, and other class-I heir of Late KJS Ahluwalia from the company by forging and fabricating the documents.
"Whereas the present (second) FIR pertains to misappropriation of funds of the company for personal use. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant is not the shareholder of the company and, therefore, she does not have the locus standi to file the complaint cannot be accepted," it said.
The court further said the allegation in this FIR was regarding misappropriation of funds of the company and any person who has interest in the company can give the information to the police.
Since these allegations constitute a cognisable offence, the police have to investigate the allegations, it said. The court noted that the material indicated that there were several proceedings pending before the NCLT regarding transfer of shares of the company and, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant does not have any locus standi to initiate the proceedings under IPC.
The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police lodged an FIR against several persons for the alleged offences of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for the complainant, argued that the previous FIR was registered on the basis of allegation of wrongfully taking control of the company by forging documents by the accused persons.
He said the present FIR was on how the accused persons have allegedly indulged in illegal and fraudulent transactions and misappropriation of the company funds and stock after taking control of the company.
Next Story
