Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 759 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyPrayer to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr. P.C. and Section 193 of the Penal Code - Forged and fabricated signature - Appellant submitted that the Interlocutory Applications were filed allegedly under the signature of Mr. Praful Kumar Bafna for the Financial Creditor and the Corporate Debtor found that the signatures were forged and fabricated - HELD THAT:- The Appellant/Corporate Debtor has not shown us that the Financial Creditor would have any advantage or benefit of putting false signatures. The prayer of I.A. No 51 of 2020 (The Appeal Page 118) claims that the I.A. Nos. 41 and 42 of 2020 are not signed by the authorized signatory Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna and prayer is to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr. P.C. and Section 193 of the Penal Code. If Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna has not signed his prosecution is being sought. The Corporate Debtor appears to have bulldozed when without asking the Adjudicating Authority to pick and send the admitted and disputed signatures for report of Handwriting Expert, on its own it sent documents which were in its possession and then brandished the said Report filing I.A. No. 62 of 2020 asking the Adjudicating Authority to take it on record. What the conclusion of that Report can be seen from Paragraph 8 of I.A. No. 62 of 2020 (Annexure P8 Page 141 at 144). The Corporate Debtor claimed that the Report dated 2nd March, 2020 conclusively found that the signature of Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna in I.A. Nos. 41 and 42 of 2020 were not “naturally executed but they must have traced/transplanted/copy-pasted”. When the admitted and disputed signatures were not sent through the Adjudicating Authority, and Corporate Debtor sent copies of documents it had, such report could naturally be expected. Copy of the Report has not been placed before us. Even without going into the merit whether or not, the signatures are matching, the Appellant has not shown that the Financial Creditor or Mr. Praful Prakash Bafna the authorized Signatory had anything to gain by authorized signatory not signing. The contents of the I.As were false is also not the case. The Appellant/Corporate Debtor has not prima facie shown any intention or mensrea on the part of the Financial Creditor in this regard - No prima facie material is shown by Corporate Debtor that by Praful Bafna himself not signing, the Adjudicating Authority would “entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material” to the result of the proceeding. (This is not to be taken as any finding whether or not he signed. We are only seeking material for “opinion” as required under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.) In the facts of the matter it does not appear to us that it is expedient in the Interest of Justice that an inquiry should be made under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. No such case was made out before the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellant has not convinced us that Interest of Justice required an inquiry to be held and so the order of Adjudicating Authority should be interfered with. The Appellant is right in claiming that the Adjudicating Authority could not have directed the Appellant to approach appropriate forum for redressal and that on this count it had jurisdiction under Section 340 of Cr. P.C. However Appellant fails to convince us that facts and circumstance of the matter required Adjudication Authority to form opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into alleged offence. It appears to us that the observations made by the Adjudicating Authority regarding jurisdiction may have to be modified. The Order of the Adjudicating Authority, as not pressed, is maintained - Appeal disposed off.
|