Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 617 - HC - Companies LawOffence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - principle of jurisdiction in civil law - HELD THAT:- All these petitions have been filed by the accused persons at the very initial stage i.e. after registration of FIR. It is clear case of the State that despite issuance of notices under Section 41 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners at their given addresses, they have failed to join the investigation. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have neither applied for anticipatory bail nor regular bail and have filed the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR and the Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 25.03.2021, directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioners with regard to FIR in question, which, in fact, implies that blanket stay of arrest has been granted to the petitioners. The main argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the complainant has not come forward to seek specific performance of agreement(s) to sell, on the face of it, is liable to be rejected, for the reason that there is encumbrance on the properties, therefore, once the complainant came to know that the properties cannot be transferred in pursuance to agreements to sell, as there was charge/encumbrance over the same, it cannot be termed that the dispute is purely of civil nature. It is case of the complainant that the petitioners have concealed about status of the properties, which were to be transferred in pursuance to the agreements to sell, therefore, on the face of it, the criminal prosecution is maintainable, independent of the fact that some proceedings before the NCLT, New Delhi are pending. The petitioners could not dispute the fact that properties i.e. Votive Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Hacienda Infosoftech Pvt. Ltd. and Challengerz Websolutions Pvt. Ltd., sought to be sold by way of agreements to sell are not clear, as even efforts were made to sell the same to another company namely Max Estates Pvt. Ltd. to raise the funds, therefore, it cannot be said that on the face of it, no offence is made out, to quash the FIR. Petition dismissed.
|