Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 :1 :
*****
Gagandeep Goel & another Vs. Radha Krishan & others
Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Gaurav Deep Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
*****
The prayer made in the present petition is for holding an
enquiry as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petitioners
allege that Criminal Misc.Petition No.54821-M of 2007 was filed
before this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the respondents. This
petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was supported by an affidavit
averring that contents of para Nos.1 to 27 thereof were true and
correct and no part of it was false and nothing had been concealed
therefrom. It is contended that number of wrong averments in the
affidavit as well as documents annexed with the petition were made.
The petitioners were even not the Managing Directors, who claimed
themselves to be so. In fact, all the wrong statements made in the
petition have been detailed in the petition and are as under:-
i) Vide para 1 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that the registered office of the Company is at SCF 4,
Sector 22, Chandigarh. Presently, the Registered
Office is at Kothi No.1119, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. A
copy of the Resolution dated 18.01.2007 passed by the
Board of Directors of the Company (hereinafter referred
to as “the BoD”) is annexed herewith as Annexure C-
Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 :2 :3.
ii) Vide para 5 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that as desired by respondent No.4, the respondent-
accused No.1 put the lock on the premises and the
keys remained with both, respondent-accused No.1
and Shri Gaurav Deep Goel, respondent No.3 in the
petition as there were two set of keys of the lock.
iii) Vide para 11 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that the petitioners were effected by the action of the
bank and respondent-accused on his behalf and on
behalf of the Company filed an S.A. Before the DRT. It
is stated that in the entire petition before this Hon’ble
Court, the petitioners have not disclosed as to what
their status is in the Company; how they were affected
and what locus they had to file the S.A., before the
DRT, on behalf of the Company.
iv) Vide para 11 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that the respondent-accused No.1 showed his
readiness and willingness to pay off all the outstanding
amount/debt to the bank and in order to show his bona
fide, deposited an amount of Rs.20.00 lakh with the
bank. That the correct position is that the act of filing
the S.A. Was by personation, clandestine and mala
fide. The respondent-accused No.1 had no known
source from which he could pay off a loan of Rs.3.60
crores. Even the amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs was
deposited by S.K.& Co.-Partner Vipin Jain, vide
Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 :3 :Demand Draft No.253029 dated 01.10.2007 issued by
the Vijaya Bank, Zirakpur (Punjab). A copy of the
Demand Draft is annexed herewith as Annexure C-4.
Neither S.K.& Co.nor its Partner Vipin Jain has
anything to do with the Company or its affairs. In nut
shell, it was a criminal conspiracy hatched to grab the
property of the company.
v) Vide para 13 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that the respondent-accused had opened the premises
with the keys that were with the respondent-accused
(No.1-7). It is stated that the premises had been lying
locked since 23.03.2006 and the key of the premises
was with complaint No.2. This is admitted by the
respondent-accused themselves in the so-called
`Minutes of Meeting’ dated 22.12.2006, drawn
fraudulently. A copy of the said so-called Minutes is
annexed herewith as Annexure C-5. All of a sudden,
in the night of 03/04.10.2007, the respondent accused
broke upon the locks of the premises. The respondent-
accused No.1 moved the DRT by personation.
Moreover, the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the
DRT, annexed as Annexure P-7 with the petition, gave
no authority to open the premises by all the respondent
accused and their associates. The said order
concerned a proposal only made by the respondent
accused No.1.
vi) Vide para 13 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 :4 :that after opening the premises, daily sale were made
and the sale proceeds were deposited with the State
Bank of India. The fact is that after breaking open the
locks and committing trespass in the night of
03/04.10.2007, the respondent-accused deposited an
amount of Rs.10,000/- in the name of sale for
04.10.2007. No other amount was deposited by the
respondent-accused.
vii) Vide para 15 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that the proceedings u/s 145 Cr.P.C. were to divest the
respondent-accused from smooth running of the
business of the Company. The fact is that the
respondent-accused had never been in possession of
the premises nor they had ever run the business of the
Company nor they had any such locus.
viii) Vide para 22 of the petition, it has wrongly been
stated that in the Memorandum of Understanding
executed on 7th Sept., 2006, annexed as Annexure P-
15 with the petition, the respondent-accused, i.e. No.1
to 7, were on one hand and that they were to pay or
had paid some amount. The factual position is that in
the said Memorandum, respondent-accused No.1 only
was on one side.
ix) Vide para 27 of the petition, it has been wrongly stated
that running business of the Company had been
attached. The fact is that the business of the Company
had got closed on 23.03.2006. The respondent
Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 :5 :accused with their associates committed trespass in
the night of 03/04.10.2007. On coming to know, a
complaint dated 03.10.2007 was lodged with the local
police by the complainant No.2. A copy of the complaint
made is annexed as Annexure C-6. The police closed
the premises in the night itself. This is apparent from
the copy of the DDR No.34 dated 04.10.2007 annexed
as Annexure P-10 with the petition. However, the
respondent-accused opened the premises next date,
i.e. On 04.10.2007, again and the police closed the
same, again. The respondent accused have
deliberately withheld information regarding the events
which actually took place.
x) Vide Ground at (viii) of para 27 of the petition, it has
wrongly been stated that the Company had been
formed by the respondent-accused, i.e. 1 to 7 and the
respondent No.2 to 4 in the petition and that the keys
were with both the parties. It is stated that except
respondent-accused No.1, no other respondent-
accused was concerned with the formation of the
Company. The respondent accused No.1 had vacated
office as Director on 25.03.2006. It is further stated that
none of the respondent-accused was ever associated
with the business of the company nor the keys were
with them.”
It is accordingly pleaded that this court should hold an
enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and if satisfied may make a
Criminal Misc.-M No.3516 of 2008 :6 :
complaint in writing or send it to a Magistrate of first Class having
jurisdiction. As per the pleadings, the false averments in the petition
have been made in a document prepared outside the Court though
committed in relations to the proceedings before this court. This
averment is made in respect of a document produced and given in
evidence in the proceedings in this court. No offence appears to have
been committed in respect of documents already produced in this
court.
In this view of the matter, the petitioners would be at
liberty to file an appropriate complaint before the Magistrate having a
competent jurisdiction in this regard, which shall deal with the same
in accordance with law.
The present petition is accordingly disposed of.
November 20, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE