Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2020 (3) TMI 300

..... 5.6.2018 at Police Station Shakarpur - It is also not in dispute that petitioner appeared before IO at Police Station Shakarpur on 17.10.2018 and he also appeared twice before Economic Offence Wing during inquiry. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, judicial interrogation of petitioner is no more required. Moreover, he is in judicial custody since 29.7.2019 - the present case is fit for bail. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court - petition disposed off. - BAIL APPLN. 61/2020 - 4-3-2020 - MR. SURESH KUMAR KAIT J. Petitioner Through Mr. Ravinder Tyagi & Mr. Yatender Bhardwaj , Advs. Respondent .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ursuance to that aforesaid FIR was registered at Police Station Shakarpur, Delhi. Later on, the said case was transferred to Police Station Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. 4. The first complainant, namely Ratan Lal Balani, made complaint dated 8.6.2017 alongwith complainant No. 2, namely Nita Kukreja, who had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited on 23.01.2012 and a showroom bearing No. G-40, Shaheen Bagh, Kalindi Runj, New Delhi, was handed over to them and they worked there till 2014. Both of them had received ₹ 3,34,290/- and thereafter, accused persons had issued cheque of security amount which has been deposited by the aforesaid persons alongwith three cheques of ₹ 50,000/- and all the cheq .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... e vide judgment dated 20.1.2017 and suit was decreed against Company i.e. M/s Pritika Fashion Pvt. Ltd., and dismissed qua defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Amit Sarup(petitioner herein) and Pradeep Sachdeva, both are Directors of said Company. 8. It is also submitted fact that complainant No. 4, Santosh Singla and Lovnish Singhal have alleged in complaint dated 8.6.2017 that they have entered into an Agreement to Sell/Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.6.2011 with accused persons. The cheque of security amount was received by firm M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited but alleged Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding dated 1.6.2018 was not signed by accused persons and complainants themselves have forged their signatures and as such there is no a .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... registered on their complaint in Police Station-Hazarat Nizamuddin and the charge-sheet in FIR No. 328/15 has been filed before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi, without arresting petitioner herein. 14. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that complainant Mr. Anshuman Sharma had also entered into an Agreement / Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Pritika Fashion Private Limited and a showroom in Gurgaon was handed over to him and thereafter, his franchisee was terminated and on his complaint, FIR No. 2758/15 has been registered at Police Station-Shakar Pur which is pending disposal. 15. It is further submitted, petitioner has never been called to join investigation in aforesaid FIR No.2758/15 as petitione .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... nding entered into with all complainants as is pre-condition of Section 415 IPC. All the complainants have entered into Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding with petitioner in the year 2011 and their franchisee was terminated in the year 2014, after about three years and showrooms were also handed over to all complainants and all complainants have received certain amount during said period. However, when Company of the petitioner suffered losses then franchisee of all complainants were terminated and cheques of security amount were returned and for that all complainants have already filed cases under Section 138 of NI Act which are pending disposal before different Courts. 21. As argued by learned counsel for petitioner that when the Civil .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... f the different memorandum of understanding, therefore, he could not pay commission as agreed by him to the complainants. Moreover, petitioner has never joined investigation after registration of the FIR. 25. In addition to the fact noted above, on behalf of the petitioner, it is not in dispute that complaint was initially received on 8.6.2018 and FIR in question was registered on 25.6.2018 at Police Station Shakarpur. 26. It is also not in dispute that petitioner appeared before IO at Police Station Shakarpur on 17.10.2018 and he also appeared twice before Economic Offence Wing during inquiry. 27. Charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, judicial interrogation of petitioner is no more required. Moreover, he is in judicial custody si .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||