Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”) and/or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) seeking quashing of FIR no. 13/2024, dated 6th March, 2024, registered at Police Station - Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi (hereinafter “EOW”) for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. At the instance of one complainant namely Mr. K Ramesh and Mrs. Kaveri Ramesh and other persons, FIR no. 16/2018 dated 24th January, 2018 got registered at Police Station – EOW for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC against the petitioner and several others.
3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2/Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter “ED”) lodged the ECIR/099HIU/2019 dated 27th June, 2019 (hereinafter “ECIR”) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (hereinafter “PMLA”) against M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Harmandeep Singh, Mr. Gurjit Singh Kochar, Mr. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Rajinder Singh Chadha and other unknown persons while considering FIR no. 16/2018 as the predicate offence.
4. The accused persons in FIR no. 16/2018 arrived at a settlement with the complainants in the said FIR. Consequently, an application for compounding under Section 320 of the CrPC was preferred before the Court concerned, which was allowed vide order dated 19th November, 2019 and the accused persons were accordingly acquitted for offences under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC.
5. Subsequently, at the instance of the one complainant namely Mrs. Shalini Gupta, another FIR no. 49/2021, dated 12th March, 2021 was registered under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC at Police Station –EOW against four accused persons including the petitioner herein. The said FIR was quashed on the grounds of settlement by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd December, 2022 passed in CRL. MC. 7083/2022.
6. In the meanwhile, a writ petition bearing no. W.P (Crl) 526/2023 titled ‘Rajinder Singh Chadha v. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.’ was filed before this Court, thereby, seeking quashing of the said ECIR since the predicate offences viz. FIR nos. 16/2018 and 49/2021 stood compounded and quashed respectively.
7. During the pendency of the above said quashing petition, a new FIR no. 55/2023 dated 10th July, 2023 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station – EOW for offences punishable under Sections 420/409/120B of the IPC on the complaint made by one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta.
8. Thereafter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24th November, 2023, partly allowed W.P (Crl) 526/2023 with the observations that since the schedule offences in FIR nos. 16/2018 and 49/20241 have been compounded and quashed, respectively, the ED cannot initiate or continue any proceeding including investigation in connection with the said two FIRs. However, the Coordinate Bench declined to quash the said ECIR in view of registration of FIR no. 55/2023 as the same would constitute ‘scheduled offences legitimizing the existence of the said ECIR’.
9. In the meanwhile, the ED issued a letter dated 27th May, 2023 to the EOW under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, thereby, sharing information about an alleged offence uncovered during the ED’s search and seizure operations conducted from 18th November, 2022 to 22nd November, 2022.
10. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition bearing CRL. MC. 420/2024 titled ‘Uppal Chadha Hi-tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.’ seeking quashing of FIR no. 55/2023 on the ground that the parties have arrived at a settlement.
11. Pursuant to the above, the EOW registered a new FIR no. 13/2024, dated 6th March, 2024, for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the IPC citing ED’s letter dated 27th May, 2023. Following the said development, on 7th April, 2024, the ED executed an addendum to the aforementioned ECIR, effectively incorporating FIR no. 13/2024 as part of the ongoing ECIR investigation.
12. On 28th May, 2024, the ED filed a prosecution complaint after investigation of ECIR before the Court concerned where the present petitioner was arraigned as accused no. 2. The learned Court below took cognizance of the matter vide order dated 28th May, 2024 and the complaint was registered as Ct. Cases no. 1799/2024.
13. Thereafter, vide order dated 14th October, 2024, CRL. MC. 420/2024 was allowed by this Court resulting in quashing of the FIR no. 55/2023.
14. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashing of the FIR no. 13/2024.
PLEADINGS BEFORE THIS COURT
15. The instant petition has been filed on the following grounds:
“A. BECAUSE the registration of FIR No. 0013/2024 is the result of a letter dated 27.05.023, purportedly under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA issued by ED sharing information about an alleged offense supposedly uncovered during their search and seizure operations conducted from 18.11.2022 to 22.11.2022 under Section 17 of the PMLA. As a direct result, the EOW registered the FIR bearing No. 0013/2024, citing the ED's letter as the basis. This FIR was only an "insurance FIR" which ED got registered to maintain investigative jurisdiction under the PMLA, anticipating the likely quashing of FIR No. 55/2023 (FIR No. 55/2023 has been quashed by this Hon 'ble Court vide order dated 14.10.2024).
B. BECAUSE a bare perusal of Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would reveal that the ED shall share information gathered with the concerned agency if it is of the opinion that the provisions of any other law have been violated. However, the information gathered by the ED and disclosed to EOW vide its letter dated 27.05.2023 is not new information and does not disclose violation of any law for which a fresh cause of action or fresh FIR is required. ED has alleged pendency of cases before RERA against the Petitioner Company, which is information available in the public domain, and certain alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy which ED has come to know after gathering information from Housing Commissioner, UP Housing and Development Board, Lucknow. This information cannot be termed as violation of any other law as prescribed by the PMLA.
C. BECAUSE the ED's actions, or rather inactions, strike at the very heart of due process and legal propriety mandated by the PMLA. Section 66(2) of the PMLA is not a mere procedural formality; it is a substantive safeguard that demands the ED to form a concrete opinion regarding the violation of any law before sharing information with other agencies. In this case, the ED's letter dated 27.05.2023 to the EOW is nothing short of a dereliction of this statutory duty. The ED's perfunctory request that "action taken, if any, on the basis of information shared may kindly be informed" is a glaring admission of its failure to form the requisite opinion. This is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental breach of the statutory mandate. The ED has essentially abdicated its responsibility, passing the buck to the EOW without fulfilling its own legal obligations. This cavalier approach not only undermines the integrity of the investigative process but also renders the entire basis of the FIR legally untenable. The ED's failure to form an opinion is not just a procedural lapse; it vitiates the very foundation of the subsequent actions taken by the EOW. In essence, the ED has initiated a chain of investigative actions without meeting the basic threshold required by law. This blatant disregard for statutory requirements cannot be condoned and renders the entire process, including the registration of the FIR, void ab initio.
D. BECAUSE the mere act of information sharing by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not absolve the recipient agency, in this case the EOW, of its fundamental duty to conduct an independent and thorough investigation. The EOW's failure to do so strikes at the core of procedural justice and investigative integrity. It is a cardinal principle of law that the recipient agency must apply its own mind, scrutinize the information received in light of other pertinent records, and arrive at an independent decision regarding the registration of a scheduled offence. The ED's presumption of a scheduled offence cannot and must not be blindly accepted as an irrefutable conclusion. The necessity for the EOW to apply its own mind is an inherent and inviolable requirement that flows from the bedrock principles governing procedural laws. By failing to conduct its own investigation and merely reproducing the ED's findings, the EOW has abdicated its statutory responsibility, compromised the integrity of the investigative process.
E. BECAUSE the legislature, in its wisdom, did not authorize the ED to communicate its 'opinion' for direct action, nor did it mandate the recipient agency to act based on such an opinion. Had this been the legislative intent, Section 66(2) would have explicitly stated that the ED could communicate its opinion and that the recipient agency should take action based on that opinion. The conspicuous absence of such phraseology is a deliberate limitation imposed by the Legislature on the scope and effect of the ED's communication.
F. BECAUSE the disclosed information, including pending RERA cases and alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy, is either already publicly available or relates to regulatory and administrative matters rather than criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code. As such, these allegations do not provide sufficient grounds for initiating new criminal proceedings against the Petitioner Company and infact shows the malafide on the part of the Informant (ED) as abuse of its powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
G. BECAUSE it is crucial to note that the pendency of cases before RERA or violation of Hi-tech policy is not an offense under the provisions of the C Indian Penal Code (IPC). These matters are primarily regulatory or administrative in nature and do not constitute criminal offenses that would warrant the filing of an FIR.
H. BECAUSE the information provided by the ED does not reveal any new criminal activity or previously unknown offenses that would justify the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings. The pendency of RERA cases is already a matter of public record, and alleged violations of the Hi-tech policy, even if substantiated, do not inherently amount to criminal conduct under the IPC or other criminal statutes. The intent of the legislature is to enable the ED to share information regarding a crime committed under some other legislation. For instance while investigating money laundering in a predicate scheduled offence lets say under Sec. 420 IPC if the ED comes across violations of FEMA or NDPS Act, the relevant authorities must be informed so that the criminal law machinery under the said law can be set in motion. The purport of Section 66(2) PMLA cannot by any stretch of imagination allow ED to continue lodging FIRs so as to ensure that ED investigation continues indefinitely.
I. BECAUSE the purpose of an FIR is to set the criminal law in motion when a cognizable offense is reported. In this case, the information shared by the ED does not meet this threshold. It merely reiterates existing regulatory issues or potential civil disputes, which should be addressed through appropriate channels such as regulatory authorities or civil courts, rather than the criminal justice system.
J. BECAUSE timing of the ED's information sharing with the EOW under Section 66 of the PMLA raises significant concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the ED's investigative process. The ED conducted its search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the PMLA from 18.11.2022 to 22.11.2022. However, the information gleaned from these operations was not immediately shared with the EOW. Instead, the ED waited until 27.05.2023 to convey this information - a delay of over six months.
K. BECAUSE the timing strongly suggests that the ED's action was not driven by the regular course of investigation, but rather by a strategic attempt to maintain its jurisdiction even if the FIR No. 0055/2023 does not survive the test of time. Such conduct on the part of a premiere federal investigation agency needs to be declared as illegal being tainted with malafide intentions.
L. BECAUSE sharing of information while exercising powers under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, the subsequent registration of FIR No. 0013/2024, is nothing but an insurance act of the ED to ensure that it is left with a predicate offense even if the FIR No. 0055/2023 is quashed.
M. BECAUSE disclosure made by the Directorate of Enforcement is entirely arbitrary, capricious, with a malafide intent and part of a larger scheme of continuous harassment of a business group. The impugned FIR, bearing No. 0013 dated 06.03.2024, should be quashed on the ground that the Directorate of Enforcement is exploiting, abusing and misusing legal provisions to ensure the survival of its lodged ECIR. This ingenious manoeuvre at the behest of ED enables the continuation of unwarranted harassment towards the Petitioner under the pretext of investigating an alleged money laundering offense.
N. BECAUSE jurisdiction and authority of the Directorate of Enforcement stands confined to considering whether an offense of money laundering stands committed. Directorate of Enforcement is not empowered to either try or examine whether an offense under any other statue stands committed.
O. BECAUSE provisions of Section 66 (2) PMLA is being utilized by ED to give teeth to an otherwise unsustainable ECIR which is impermissible in law.
P. BECAUSE the contents of the impugned FIR are merely a reproduction of the ED's letter dated 27.05.2023. EOW has solely relied on the ED's letter without conducting its own inquiry. This approach potentially circumvents due process and raises concerns about the proper distinction between regulatory matters and criminal investigations. Moreover, if the matters in the ED's letter are already being addressed through other legal or regulatory mechanisms, initiating a parallel criminal case based on the same facts raise issues of double jeopardy or abuse of process.
Q. BECAUSE the impugned FIR registered by the EOW is legally untenable due to the absence of an independent investigation based on the information disclosed by the ED. The EOW's action of merely reproducing the contents of the ED's letter dated 27.05.2023 without conducting its own inquiry contravenes the principles of law. While Section 66(2) of the PMLA permits the sharing of information between authorities "for necessary action," it does not automatically crystallize a scheduled offence. The registration of the Impugned FIR without proper investigation is abuse of the process of law. By failing to conduct an independent inquiry to verify the allegations or gather additional evidence, the EOW has potentially circumvented due process, raising concerns about the proper distinction between regulatory matters and criminal investigations. This approach not only fails to meet the standard of due diligence expected in criminal investigations but also undermines the principles of fair investigation and natural justice. Consequently, the non-investigation by the EOW of the information disclosed by the ED renders the FIR bad in law and liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the judgement passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Harish Fabiani v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors.' reported as 2022 SCC Online Del 3121.
R. BECAUSE there is a clear conflict in the twin roles of ED. On one hand, it is no more res integra to be argued against the settled principle of law that ED's ECIR can only survive if there is a predicate offence, on the other hand, if ED is allowed to perpetually continue its ECIR on the basis of an FIR which it can itself lodge on the basis of exactly same allegations, the proceedings under the PMLA would continue to exist even in the absence of a real predicate offence. Hence it is most significant to interpret and define the countours of following words of Section 66(2) - "the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened.”
S. BECAUSE without prejudice to the above and arguendo, it is submitted that the ED can investigate only laundering of proceeds of crime. The ED cannot be allowed to investigate both the predicate offence as well as the laundering of proceeds of crime and hence such actions on the part of ED must be quashed.”
16. In response to the instant petition, the respondent no. 1/EOW has filed the status report, relevant paragraphs of which are as under:
“1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of FIR no. 13/2024 dated 06.03.2024 registered at PS- EOW, New Delhi.
REGISTRATION OF PRESENT FIR (13/2024 PS EOW)
2. The above said case has been registered on the basis of a written information dated 27.05.2023 shared by Directorate of Enforcement (ED) u/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 for taking action against M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. (UCHDPL) and others.
3. It was informed by ED that it has recorded an Enforcement Case Information Repo1i (ECIR) bearing no. ECIR/09/HIU/2019 for further investigation of offence u/s 3 & 4 PMLA, 2002 on the basis of FIR No. 16/2028 u/s 420/406/120B JP which was registered at EOW on 21.01.2018 against M/s UCHDPL and its directors. During 18.11.22 to 22.11.22, ED carried out search and seizure u/s 17 PMLA 2002 at various places related to M/s UCHDPL and seized various records/documents including digital devices viz. mobile phones and Laptops.
4. It is further informed by ED that analysis of seized documents revealed diversion of funds by M/s UCHDPL to its following group entities to the tune of Rs. 474 Crores approximately.
a. M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., b. M/s Suncity Hi Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., c. M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd.,
d. M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd.,
5. It is also informed by ED that the booking amount collected by M/s UCHDPL from investors/home buyers of the projects namely Wave City at NH-24 Ghaziabad has been diverted for the purposes other than development of the said projects which resulted in non-completion of project in time for which the home buyers had given their money.
6. It is also informed by ED that total 966 complaints were received at RERA, UP against M/s UCHDPL, out of which 887 have been disposed off with the directions of refund, settlement default possession etc. and 79 out of 966 complaints are also pending with RERA, UP. Status of compliance of directions of RERA is yet to be ascertained.
7. It is further informed by ED that M/s UCHDPL has got the approval from UP Govt. to purchase the land for Hi-Tech City in excess of 12.5 Acres u/s 154 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and got the permission to develop the Hi-Tech City as single company rather than a consortium.
8. It is informed by ED that the land was first acquired by 40 companies and then these companies were merged with UCHDPL by an order dated 05.05.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It appears that real intention of incorporating
40 companies, acquisition of land through them and then their merger with UCHDPL was to aggregate land in UCHDPL by circumventing the Land Ceiling Laws.
9. The above information of ED, prima-facie disclosed commission of cognizable offence and hence the present FIR bearing no. 13/2024 was registered at EOW and taken up for investigation.
STATUS OF OTHER CASES/FIR
10. First case against the petitioner UCHDPL was registered at EOW bearing FIR No. 16/2018 on 21.01.2018 wherein it was alleged that UCHDPL and its directors and other employees of the company entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the innocent investors/public at large in guise of allotting them plots on the discounted rates in the prime location of Ghaziabad UP with false claim of world class facilities and amenities.
11. There were total 73 victims in the above said FIR and chargesheet was filed before the Ld. CMM/South on 14.11.2019. However, the case was compounded based on the settlement with victims.
12. Another case against the petitioner UCHDPL was registered at EOW bearing FIR No. 49/2021 on 12.03.2021 on the similar allegations in which there were total 73 victims. The said FIR has been quashed by the Hon 'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 22.12.2022 on the ground of settlement with the victims.
13. Thereafter, another case against the petitioner UCHDPL was registered at EOW bearing FIR No. 55/2023 on 10.07.2023 on the complaint of one Shobhna Gupta having similar allegations. The said case has also been quashed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 14. 10.2024 on the ground of settlement with the complainant.
14. All the previous FIRs i.e., 16/2018, 49/2021 and 55/2023 against the petitioner UCHDPL has been either compounded or quashed on the ground of settlement with the complainants/victims. However, the present FIR i.e. 13/2024 is registered at EOW on 06.03.2023 on the basis of written information dated 27.05.2023 received from ED which was much prior to the quashing of FIR no. 55/2023 of PSEOW.
15. That the allegations in the present FIR i.e., 13/2024 are different from the previous FIRs registered against the petitioner wherein there is specific allegation of land acquisition by 40 companies by circumventing land ceiling laws and their subsequent merger with the petitioner UCHDPL apart from the other allegations of diversion of investor's money by the petitioner UCHDPL in conspiracy with its other group entities.
16. The allegations pertain to the cheating with the concerned government authorities as well with the investors/home buyers whose money have been misappropriated by the accused company i.e. UCHDPL by way of diversion of funds to its group entities.
17. As per the information of ED, there are 79 complaints still pending with UP RERA. The exact number of investors/victims is not known yet which is to be ascertained during investigation.
18. That the investigation of the present FIR i.e., 13/2024 registered at EOW is at initial stage.”
17. The respondent no. 2/ED has also filed its reply and the relevant portion of the same is as under:
“..4. It is submitted that the petition deserves to be rejected for concealment of material facts. It is submitted that the in several paragraphs the petitioner has stated the contents of the letter under Section 66(2) PMLA and impugned FIR pertain to pending cases registered under RERA and allegations of policy violation. However, the petitioner has deliberately and conspicuously omitted to refer to the allegations regarding the diversion of investor funds which is a material fact and is at the centre of the entire factual matrix. There is not even a whisper in the petition with regard to the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner regarding diversions of funds and utilization of those funds other than the purpose of development of Hi Tech city at Ghaziabad which was the essential element of Hi Tech Policy 2003 under which the petitioner was shortlisted for such development. Further even today after the lapse of 20 years the petitioner has neither acquired the complete land nor it has completely developed the acquired land. ***
6. In this regard it is submitted that power/duty to send information under section 66(2) while inquiring into the offence of money laundering has been very well recognized and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India; SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein the 3 Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold the following. ……….
***
***
14. Further it is submitted that it may be seen that the entire petition is silent as to how and why the Petitioner is aggrieved by the mere registration of an FIR where the investigation has not yet been concluded. The present petition is nothing but a frail attempt on behalf of the Petitioner to shy away from his responsibility of assisting in the ongoing investigation. In, Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 2229) the very same question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and it was held that:…………
15. It is submitted that the very premise of the present petition is against the well settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt, of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC I, wherein it has been categorically held by a bench of 5 Judges that, “The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.”
***
17.That it is submitted that from a perusal of the facts of the case and gist of investigation conducted by the ED, as enumerated hereinabove, it is beyond any pale of doubt that the same discloses information regarding commission of a cognizable offence and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
***
***
20.Further, FIR/Complaint may be quashed if the allegations made therein are so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent man can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner-accused- A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna (2002)2 SCC 642.
21. That after referring to State v Bhajan Lai 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Rajesh Bajaj v State (1999)3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry v Rajesh (1999)8 SCC 686 held that quashing of FIR or a complaint in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions.
22. It is submitted that the very premise of the present petition is against the well settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Govt, of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been categorically held by a bench of 5 Judges that, “The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.”
23. Further it is submitted that that the Prosecution Complaint dated 07.05.2024 has been filed and cognizance stands taken by the Ld. Special Court vide order dated 28.05.2024 and the petitioner accused has been summoned, the same established that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering under the PML Act. The same has been accepted and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patal & Ors; (2012)10 SCC 517 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as follows……….
***
***
30. The modus operandi devised by M/s UCHDPL for diversion of funds is carried out in following manner:
a. Incorporation of companies in India by the promoters/ directors of M/s UCHDPL which were subsequently used to divert funds from M/s. UCHDPL.
b. Infusion of fund/investment in UCHDPL from various companies which were not part of Wave group belonging to relatives of promoters/ directors of M/s. UCHDPL.
c. Diversion/transfer of funds collected from various homebuyers to M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, M/s Wave Infratech Private Limited, M/s Wave Megacity Centre Private Limited, M/s Suncity Hi Tech Infrastructures Private Limited and M/s Country Colonisers Private Limited, which is not involved in the construction and development of Hi-Tech City at Ghaziabad. All the above 5 companies are part of Wave group promoted by Late Gurdeep Singh Chaddha.
d. The diversion of funds of innocent homebuyers/ customers was a criminal conspiracy hatched by M/s. UCHDPL in collusion with its group companies under which funds collected at if development of Hi-Tech City were utilized for activities other than the intended purpose in order to give undue benefit to such group companies.
31. From the investigation conducted under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 it is established that part of booking amounts collected by M/s. UCHDPL from investors/homebuyers of the project namely Wave City at NH-24, Ghaziabad has been diverted to its other group companies for the purposes other than development of the said project which resulted in non-completion of the project in time for which the investors/homebuyers had given their hardearned money. The same is evident from the multiple FIRs registered by several customers against M/s. UCHDPL its directors, promoters and other persons. Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Chadha was the promoter, director and a key decision maker in M/s. UCHDPL and its group companies, however he has expired on 17.11.2012.
32. Further, during investigation it was found that there were multiple complaints lodged against M/s. UCHDPL with Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Real Estate Regulatory Authority came into existence after Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which aims to protect the interests of buyers/investors and promote transparency and accountability in the real estate industry.
33. Therefore, enquiries were made with RERA, UP vide letter dated 16.03.2023 RERA, UP has informed vide letter dated 16.03.2023 that total 966 complaints were received against M/s UCHDPL, out of which 887 have been disposed of with directions of refund, mutual settlement, default, possession etc. More over 79 complaints are still pending as per RERA.
34. This fact also establishes that despite collecting funds from the investors/buyers/ general public for development of Hi -Tech City at Ghaziabad, M/s. UCHDPL in collusion with its group companies cheated such investors/buyers/general public and dishonestly utilized those funds for procurement of Land for its Group companies at Hyderabad, Mohali, Noida etc, for payment of statutory dues, for payment of administrative expenses in these companies, for expansion of their other businesses, repayment of Loans etc.
35.Investigation conducted so far revealed that funds totaling to Rs. 845 crores approximately have been diverted by M /s. UCHDPL in collusion with its group companies in the manner as explained above which is nothing but proceeds of crime generated by cheating the innocent homebuyers.
***
***
39. That the averments made in Ground B are factually incorrect, concealing material facts and misleading, hence the ground and the writ petition deserve to the rejected on this ground alone. The allegations contained in the FIR No. 0013/2024 are new and not made in the previous FIRs and the same has been expanded in detail in the instant reply. It is submitted that the bare perusal letter dated 27.05.2023 and the subsequent impugned FIR would show that the information shared by the ED did not only contain the “cases before RERA” and “violations of Hi-Tech Policy” but also contained a detailed account of investor funds to the tune of 845 Crores which were diverted. It is submitted that the petitioner has deliberately concealed the latter part relating of diversion of investor funds and the dishonest conduct of the petitioner and others. The information shared is regarding diversion of funds by UCHDPL to its group companies for the purposes other than the development of HiTech city thereby generating proceeds of Crime. These funds were received from retail investors/bulk investors and general public for the allotment of land/plot/building in the Hi Tech City. However, rather than allotment of land and development of HiTech City, these funds were utilised for purchase of land, repayment of loan, and other personal gains not related to HiTech city. The intent of sharing of information regarding RERA complaints was to show the grievances of general public at large. It is further submitted that at the stage to determine whether the FIR should be quashed it has to be seen whether there is prima facie case which warrants investigation and to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. In this regard the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somjeet Mallick Vs State Of Jharkhand & Others (SLP (Cr) 6583 of 2024) are relevant, wherein the Hon’ble Court was dealing with the quashing petition for the offence registered under Section 406/420 IPC, and overturned the quashing order passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
40. That the averments made in Ground C deserve to the rejected as false, frivolous and self-contradictory. It is submitted that it is only upon the formation of opinion on the basis of information or material in possession, that the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened, the information was shared under Section 66(2) PMLA. It is submitted ED has discharged it statutory duty following the due process of law. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner avers that the ED is to share “abdicated its responsibility, passing the buck to the EOW without fulfilling its own legal obligations” which is incorrect as investigation into any offence other that offence of money laundering does not fall within the domain to ED/PMLA and it is only the concerned authority which can investigate the same, which in the present case is EOW. It is submitted that the in ground N and S the petition avers that ED cannot investigate any other offence under any other statute which appears to be contradictory to the averments in present paragraphs. It is submitted that the ED is bound to share information under Section 66(2) if while investigating a case under PMLA it comes across information or material which prima facie shows that the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened. The Section 66(2) is obligatory in nature as it directs if the ED is of the opinion on the basis of information or material in possession, that the provisions of any other law are contravened then ED shall share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action…”
SUBMISSIONS
(on behalf of the petitioner)
18. Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR no. 13/2024 is illegal, baseless and has been registered without application of mind which makes it liable to be quashed.
19. It is submitted that the registration of the aforesaid FIR is the result of a letter dated 27th May, 2023 purportedly under Section 66(2) of the PMLA issued by the ED, thereby, sharing information about an alleged offence supposedly uncovered during their search and seizure operations conducted from 18th November, 2022 to 22nd November, 2022. It is also submitted that as a direct result, the EOW registered the FIR no. 13/2024 citing the ED’s letter as a basis.
20. It is further submitted that the said FIR was only an ‘insurance FIR’ which the ED got registered to maintain investigative jurisdiction under the PMLA, anticipating the likely quashing of FIR no. 55/2023 which was subsequently quashed on 14th October, 2024
21. It is submitted that a bare perusal of Section 66(2) of the PMLA would reveal that the ED shall share the information gathered with the concerned agency if it is of the opinion that the provisions of any other law have been violated, however, the information gathered by the ED and disclosed to EOW vide its letter dated 27th May, 2023 is not new information and does not disclose violation of any law for which a fresh cause of action or fresh FIR is required.
22. It is submitted that timing of the ED’s information sharing with the EOW under Section 66 of the PMLA raises significant concerns about the impartiality and integrity of the ED’s investigative process. The ED conducted its search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the PMLA from 18th November, 2022 to 22nd November, 2022. However, the information gleaned from these operations was not immediately shared with the EOW. Instead, the ED waited until 27th May, 2023 to convey this information, i.e., after a delay of over six months.
23. It is submitted that ED has alleged pendency of cases before RERA against the petitioner, which is information available in public domain, and certain alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy which the ED has come to know after gathering information from Housing Commissioner, UP Housing and Development Board, Lucknow. This information cannot be termed as violation of any other law as prescribed by the PMLA.
24. It is submitted that the ED’s actions, or rather inactions, strike at the very heart of the due process and legal propriety mandated by the PMLA as Section 66(2) of the PMLA is not a mere procedural formality, but a substantive safeguard that demands the ED to form a concrete opinion regarding the violation of any law before sharing information with other agencies.
25. It is submitted that in the instant case, the ED’s letter dated 27th May, 2023 to the EOW is nothing short of a dereliction of the statutory duty. The ED’s perfunctory request that ‘action taken, if any, on the basis of information shared may kindly be informed’ is a glaring admission of its failure to form the requisite opinion and the same is not a minor oversight; it is a fundamental breach of the statutory mandate.
26. It is submitted that the ED has essentially abdicated its responsibility by mechanically forwarding the information to the EOW to keep the investigation against the petitioner alive. This cavalier approach not only undermines the integrity of the investigative process but also renders the entire basis of the FIR legally untenable.
27. It is submitted that the mere act of information sharing under Section 66(2) of the PMLA does not absolve the recipient agency, EOW herein, of its fundamental duty to conduct an independent and thorough investigation.
28. It is also submitted that the ED’s presumption of a scheduled offence cannot and must not be blindly accepted as an irrefutable conclusion. Moreover, by failing to conduct its own investigation and merely reproducing the ED’s findings, the EOW has abdicated its statutory responsibility.
29. It is submitted that the legislature, in its wisdom, neither did authorize the ED to communicate its ‘opinion’ for direct action, nor did it mandate the recipient agency to act based on such an opinion. Further, had this been the legislative intent, Section 66(2) of the PMLA would have explicitly stated that the ED could communicate its opinion and that the recipient agency should take action based on that opinion. The conspicuous absence of such phraseology is a deliberate limitation imposed by the legislature on the scope and effect of the ED’s communication. Therefore, the act of ED forwarding the information and EOW registering the FIR thereupon is erroneous.
30. It is submitted that the disclosed information, including pending RERA cases and alleged violations of Hi-Tech Policy, is either already publicly available or relates to regulatory and administrative matters rather than criminal offences under the IPC. As such, these allegations do not provide sufficient grounds for initiating new criminal proceedings against the petitioner company and in fact shows the mala fide on the part of the informant, i.e., ED, as abuse of its powers, under the PMLA. It is further submitted that the information provided by the ED does not reveal any new criminal activity or previously unknown offences that would justify the initiation of fresh criminal proceedings.
31. It is submitted that the contents of the impugned FIR are merely a reproduction of the ED’s letter dated 27th May, 2023 and the EOW solely relied on the ED’s letter without conducting its own inquiry. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the said approach potentially circumvents due process and raises concerns about the proper distinction between regulatory matters and criminal investigations. Moreover, if the matters in the ED’s letter are already being addressed through other legal or regulatory mechanisms, initiating a parallel criminal case based on the same facts raise issues of double jeopardy or abuse of process.
32. It is submitted that the impugned FIR registered by the EOW is legally untenable due to the absence of an independent investigation based on the information disclosed by the ED. The EOW's action of merely reproducing the contents of the ED's letter dated 27th May, 2023 without conducting its own inquiry contravenes the principles of law.
33. It is submitted that while Section 66(2) of the PMLA permits the sharing of information between authorities ‘for necessary action,’ it does not automatically crystallize a scheduled offence. Thus, the registration of the impugned FIR without proper investigation is an abuse of the process of law. By failing to conduct an independent inquiry to verify the allegations or gather additional evidence, the EOW has potentially circumvented due process, raising concerns about the proper distinction between regulatory matters and criminal investigations.
34. It is submitted that this approach not only fails to meet the standard of due diligence expected in criminal investigations but also undermines the principles of fair investigation and natural justice. Consequently, the non-investigation by the EOW of the information disclosed by the ED renders the FIR bad in law and liable to be quashed
35. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for.
(on behalf of the respondent no.1/EOW)
36. Per Contra, Mr. Amol Sinha, learned ASC, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 EOW vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
37. It is submitted that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of written information dated 27th May, 2023, shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA for taking action against M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others. It is submitted that it was informed by the ED that it has recorded an ECIR for further investigation of offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA on the basis of FIR nos. 16/2018 which was registered at EOW on 21st January, 2018 against the present petitioner. It is submitted that during 18th November, 2022 to 22nd November, 2022, the ED carried out search and seizure under Section 17 of the PMLA at various places related to the petitioner and seized various records/documents including digital devices viz. mobile phones and laptops.
38. It is submitted that it was further informed by the ED that analysis of seized documents revealed diversion of funds to the tune of Rs. 474 Crores approximately by the petitioner to its group entities namely M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Suncity Hi – Tech Infrastructure Ltd., M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd.
39. It is submitted that vide the letter dated 27th May, 2023, it was also informed by the ED that the booking amount collected by the petitioner from investors/home buyers of the projects namely M/s Wave City at NH-24, Ghaziabad has been diverted for the purposes other than development of the said projects which resulted in non-completion of project in time for which the home buyers had given their money.
40. It is submitted that the petitioner got the approval from the UP Government to purchase the land for Hi – Tech City in excess of 12.5 Acres under Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act, 1950 and got the permission to develop the Hi – tech City as a single company rather than a consortium. It is further submitted that the land was first acquired by forty companies and then these companies were merged with the petitioner by an order dated 5th April, 2014 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It appears that real intention of incorporating forty companies, acquisition of land through them and their merger with the petitioner was to aggregate the land with the petitioner company by circumventing the land ceiling laws.
41. It is submitted that the above information of ED, prima facie, disclosed commission of cognizable offence and hence, the present FIR was registered at EOW and taken up for investigation.
42. It is submitted that all the previous FIRs i.e., 16/2018, 49/2021 and 55/2023 against the petitioner has been either compounded or quashed on the ground of settlement with the complainants/victims, however, the present FIR i.e. 13/2024 was registered at EOW on 6th March, 2024 on the basis of written information received from the ED which was much prior to the quashing of FIR no. 55/2023.
43. It is submitted that the allegations in the present FIR i.e., 13/2024 are different from the previous FIRs registered against the petitioner wherein there is specific allegation of land acquisition by forty companies by circumventing land ceiling laws and their subsequent merger with the petitioner apart from the other allegations of diversion of investor's money by the petitioner in conspiracy with its other group entities.
44. It is submitted that the allegations pertain to cheating with the concerned government authorities as well with the investors/home buyers whose money have been misappropriated by the petitioner by way of diversion of funds to its group entities.
45. It is submitted that as per the information of the ED, there are seventy nine complaints still pending with UP RERA. The exact number of investors/victims is not known yet which is to be ascertained during investigation which is at a nascent stage.
46. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed.
(on behalf of the respondent no.2/ED)
47. Thereafter, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned SPP also vehemently opposed the instant petition submitting to the effect that the present petition has been filed seeking quashing of FIR no. 13/2024 on the primary ground that the same has been registered by the police authorities on the basis of information shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, and that allegedly the police authorities have failed to conduct any enquiry or apply its own mind before registration of such FIR. In this regard, it is submitted that power/duty to send information under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, while inquiring into the offence of money laundering, has been very well recognized and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudahry vs. Union of India SCC OnLine SC 929. It is further submitted that the criminal law can be put into motion by any person as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak(1988) 2 SCC 602.
48. It is submitted that the instant petition deserves to be rejected for concealment of material facts. In several paragraphs, the petitioner has stated the contents of the letter under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA and impugned FIR pertain to pending cases registered under RERA and allegations of policy violation. However, the petitioner has deliberately and conspicuously omitted to refer to the allegations regarding the diversion of investor funds which is a material fact and is at the centre of the entire factual matrix.
49. It is submitted that there is not even a whisper in the petition with regard to the allegations in the FIR against the petitioner regarding diversions of funds and utilization of those funds for the purpose other than development of the Hi-Tech city at Ghaziabad which was an essential element of the Hi-Tech Policy, 2003 under which the petitioner was shortlisted for such development. Further, even today after the lapse of twenty years, the petitioner has neither acquired the complete land, nor has it completely developed the acquired land.
50. It is submitted that the entire petition is silent as to how and why the petitioner is aggrieved by the mere registration of an FIR where the investigation has not yet been concluded. The present petition is nothing but a frail attempt on behalf of the petitioner to shy away from his responsibility of assisting in the ongoing investigation.
51. It is submitted that the very premise of the present petition is against the well settled law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt, of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein, it has been categorically held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the CrPC if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
52. It is submitted that from a perusal of the facts of the case and gist of investigation conducted by the ED, as enumerated hereinabove, it is beyond any pale of doubt that the same discloses information regarding commission of a cognizable offence and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
53. It is submitted that a complaint under the provisions of the PMLA has been filed and cognizance stands taken by the Court concerned vide order dated 28th May, 2024 and the petitioner accused has been summoned which establishes that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and that the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering under the PMLA.
54. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR establishes that despite collecting funds from the investors/buyers/general public for development of the Hi-Tech City at Ghaziabad, the petitioner, in collusion with its group companies, cheated such investors/buyers/general public and dishonestly utilized those funds for procurement of the land for its group companies at Hyderabad, Mohali, Noida etc, for payment of statutory dues, for payment of administrative expenses in these companies, for expansion of their other businesses, repayment of loans etc.
55. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) which provides inherent powers to this Court, however, in terms of the settled position of law, while adjudicating a petition for quashing of an FIR, the powers under the aforesaid provision are to be exercised sparingly and cautiously.
56. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
57. This Court has heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/EOW and learned SPP appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2/ED at length, and perused the relevant material placed on record including the status report.
58. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to state the settled position of law regarding quashing of an FIR under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC).
59. It is a settled law that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the BNSS) is vast and the High Court has the power to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
60. Furthermore, under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has the authority to take into consideration the material that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision. The aforesaid parameters must be borne in mind while examining whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC in the facts and circumstances of a case.
61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, reiterated the principles to be followed while quashing an FIR and held as under:
“10.3. Then comes the celebrated decision of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] . In the said decision, this Court considered in detail the scope of the High Court powers under Section 482CrPC and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the FIR and referred to several judicial precedents and held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the merits and demerits of the allegations and quash the proceedings without allowing the investigating agency to complete its task. At the same time, this Court identified the following cases in which FIR/complaint can be quashed:
“102. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
***
13. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, 1944 SCC OnLine PC 29 : (1943-44) 71 IA 203 : AIR 1945 PC 18] , the following principles of law emerge:
13.1. Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences.
13.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences.
13.3. However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 13.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 CrPC is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court.)
13.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
13.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.
13.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule.
13.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 CrPC.
13.9. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping.
13.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.
13.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice.
13.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.
13.13. The power under Section 482CrPC is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the Court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court.
13.14. However, at the same time, the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in R.P. Kapur [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] and Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint.
13.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the Court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.
14. Whether the High Court would be justified in granting stay of further investigation pending the proceedings under Section 482CrPC before it and in what circumstances the High Court would be justified is a further core question to be considered…”
62. Perusal of the aforesaid extracts shows that in terms of the settled position of law, an FIR can be quashed by the High Court - where the allegations made in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence, where the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fides and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge etc.
63. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the “rarest of rare cases”. Additionally, while examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
64. Thus, ordinarily, the Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the Court is, however, recognized to secure the ends of justice or prevent the abuse of the process by Section 482 of the CrPC.
65. As per the law, to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that the defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts, and that the material so produced is such as would clearly defeat or negate the allegations contained in the FIR without conducting trial. Further, as per Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, the material placed on record has to be of such impeccable quality that would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the accusations as false. Therefore, in order to meet the ends of justice, the High Court may be persuaded by its judicial conscience to prevent the abuse of the process of law.
66. Now adverting to the matter in hand.
67. At this stage, it is pertinent for this Court to refer to the series of events that led to the filing of the present petition.
68. Initially, FIR no. 16/2018 was registered by the respondent no. 1/ EOW at the instance of several individual investors. In summary, the assertions made in the said FIR pertained to the alleged fact that petitioner company and its directors did not have any project land for construction and still they lured the investors in depositing money to purchase the units. Further, the developer, with mala fide intentions, increased the land area 1500 Acres to 4500 Acres without requisite permissions; and the developer has failed to handover the possession despite depositing 65% to 85% of the total amount along with other periphery charges. It was also alleged in the said FIR that the petitioner initially took payments in its name, however, later on the payments were taken in the name of one new entity namely ‘M/s Wave City NH24’. Additionally, the complainant had made allegations with regard to diversion of funds. The relevant paragraphs of the said FIR are as under:
“..To,Deputy Commissioner of police ALBR Department,Mandir Marg, New Delhi. SUB - Registration of FIR against (1) Mis. Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Lid., having its office M-4, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi -110049, and its directors namely (2) Harmandeep Singh Kandhari (R/o-C-1943, Sector-44, NOIDA-201301, UP) (3) Mr. Rajinder Singh Chadha (R/o-21,Oak Drive Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi) (4) Mr. Manpreet Singh Chadha (R/o-21,Oak Drive Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi),(5) Mr. Gurjit Singh Kochar(B-11, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi), (6) Kritika Gupta and (7) other officials/persons involved in this crime under section 420, 406, 469,468 471 & 1208 of IPC.Sir, The present complaint is preferred against M/s. Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd having its office at M-4, Mezzanine Floor, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi- 110049 and its Directors, after suffering for 11 years at the hands of the Accused with no visible end to this abuse in sight. 1.That since the launch of their project in 2006, Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd's management and decision makers (current/ Ex- Directors, sales and marketing team) have been playing with the investor's hard earned money and consequently I request you to look into this matter. 2. The facts leading to the present complaint are as under; a. That in the year 2003, the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) formulated a policy for the development of a Hi-Tech City thereby leveraging a platform to the real estate developers to develop the hi-tech and smart townships with modern facilities in district Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Said policy was passed vide Govt. Order No. 6057 /9-A-2003-34-VIVI DH/03 Ft. 22.11.03 b. That the policy of the GDA was widely circulated across all leading newspapers in the state of Uttar Pradesh thus generated interest among the general public c. That in the month of February 2005, the Agents/ Brokers of Uppal Chadha. Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd started approaching the public with a early bird • hooking discount offer on plots in their proposed Hi-Tech Township project comprising of various projects including our projects subsequently named "Rosewood Enclave", "Sunny Wood Enclave", "Lime Wood Enclave" & "Crestwood Enclave" situate in the Villages of Kachera, Dujana & Mehrauli, purportedly Sectors 7, 15, 16, &17, NH-24, Tehsil & District, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh comprising of following facilities and amenities; I. Location near the NI-F- 24, 8 lane expressway; ii 10 km from Delhi border; iii. 7 km from Indirapuram/ Neida; iv Gated boundary ,v. Audio Video security; vi . All in house facilities; vii. Independent water/ electric system viii Golf Course; ix Helipads; x I.T international school, college, shopping malls; xi Plots, villas, apartments; xiii 24 mtr to 100 mtr wide roads; xiii Metro train through two routes. xiv Possession within 18 months from the date of booking; e. That project looked extremely promising especially with the host of propaganda made by the Developer Company and its Directors through Newspapers, marketing associates of the Accused Company, promise of world class amenities at the Hi tech City, the Directors, Marketing Agents & office sales staff of the Accused Company further allured me by showing brochures & layout plan for the Wave City (High Tech Township Project) of about 1500 acres. The possession of plot was to be given within (eight) 8 months from the date of allotment as per the Accused Company documents and the booking was done at the Company's office situated at 33, Community Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025. F .That the Directors of the Accused Company categorically through the Registration Form for Expression of Interest p0romised the following to the Complainant at the time of accepting the booking amount; i Discounted negotiated price; ii Provisional allotment to be granted within eight (8) months from the date of execution of Registration Form for Expression of Interest by the Accused Company Believing the above representations of the accused company and its Directors and in pursuit of owing a dream plot and to lead a quality life, the Complainants paid an initial booking amount to the Accused company and its Directors. The accused company and its directors made the Complainants sign .a two page "Registration Form for Expression of Interest" (copies enclosed) and receipt against the booking was also issued by Accused company/ Directors ( Copy enclosed). 3. That the Directors and the Accused Company neither had the project land nor any license from the Government w.r.t the Hi Tech Township project at the time of accepting the money but believing all the information, representations, assurances and promises to be true and relying on the brand UPPAL Group and subsequently WAVE group, invested our hard earned money in the plots under the Accused Company's HI Tech Township Project. 4. That the Directors of the Accused Company failed to keep their promise of offering the provisional allotment of the plot even after lapse of 15 months from the date of booking or refund money with promised interest. Thereafter feeling deceived and dejected the Complainants approached the Accused Company for refund of invested money along with interest. However, the Directors of the Accused Company through their hired bouncers and anti-social elements never allowed the Complainants to meet them personally. As such money invested was never returned by the Directors and the Accused Company.5 That the developer had malafide intention from the beginning which can be ascertained by the fact that the developer while took the signature of buyer/ Allottee never signed or put their company seal in our copy. 6. On 16th October. 2006 the Complainants received a letter stating that (1) the Detailed Project Report had been approved by the UP Government and (2) That Master Plan is ready and(3) the funds for acquisition for the township project have already been deposited with the Government. We visited the office of the Company at New Friends Colony, New Delhi to inquire about details of the allotment, but were always told that since it was such a huge and ambitious project which will take some time. At this stage, the undersigned Complainants felt that they have been deceived but again the complainants were convinced & assured regarding the handing over of the plots very soon and that too within the time as promised. At this juncture they were provided with a C D containing the animated graphics of the proposed Hi Tech Township, the contents of which are indeed mesmerizing. 7.That on and around 30th November 2009, the complainants received a letter slating that all necessary licenses and approvals were received , the first phase of 1500 Acres had been approved by the government and the details about sectors and plots were being-finalized with them government but the allotted only to registered applicants. 8. That on and around 15th June 2011, we suddenly received a demand letter attached herewith) signed by one Mr. Girish Gulla, Vice President of the Accused Company. To our shock and surprise the name of the company, the township and the address of the company were all changed and NOW ALL CHEQUE PAYMENTS WERE SOUGHT IN A NEW ENTITY NAMELY "WAVE CITY NH 24". We also learned that the Company Had accepted 65% - 85% money in lump sum from other applicants and unilaterally chose to allot Phase 1 to such applicants who paid money in 2011 only while keeping old applicants (Complainants in this case) in the dark and thereby depriving our right for first allotment. When we raised objection to this It was informed by the Developer that the size of the above mentioned township project had increased from 1500 'to 4500 Acres hence we would also get our plots shortly. 9. That thereafter, the Complainant also tried to seek refund with interest as agreed but to no avail. Although, we were assured that our investment would be safe and that if not immediately, the allotment would be done within a year as development in the township was under progress. Finally in Aug 2012, we were offered allotment in an installment plan, no agreement was offered, and Peripheral Development Charges were added, which raised the rate per Sq. yard considerably. Along with the payment the Accused company through its Directors has also collected the Service Charge and that same charges were deposited with the Government Account or not is also suspicious. Now even after more than 11 years and 65% to 85% payment we are yet to gel possession of the assured plot. 10. The Directors of the Accused Company, and its employees apparently have succeeded in conniving and fraudulently siphoning our hard earned money fromM/s. UPPAL CHADDHA Hi TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. TO THEIR NEW ENTITY NAMELY M/s. WAVECITY NH24 or to such other project of the group. If the investigation and the forensic audit of the documents of the Accused Company and their Directors are done after the registration of FIR, many other complainant will join as there may be the lump-sum forgery of more than 1 Crores by the Accused Company, its directors & employees. It is also pertinence to mention that the accused persons are apparently involved in taking money from the several people, siphoning huge amount of funds from the present company to another. 11. As on today, no approved developed plots as per law are available with the Accused Company and farmers are seen farming in their land. In fact, there is neither requisite permission from the Competent Authority nor the work of project is going on and there are no chances of completion of project in the near future because we understand the project land in question is in the possession of the respective farmers and they are cultivating their land. One Ms. Kajal Chibber, Manager Sales, who had been working with the company probably since last 8 years and apparently knows the real facts of the company, had revealed the above information. 12. When the Complainant took out the maps and demanded to identify the buyers plot on the ground Ms. Kajal Chibber admitted that there were no plots, the map was just design and no sectors are existing. The company has already collected Approx. about 65% to 85% plus other periphery charges from the Complainants by then and the details of total collection is annexed herewith. When the plots are not even available how developer can charge periphery charges from buyers? Also malafide intention of builder is further evident from the fact that they have charged preferential location charge from all the buyers instead of charging only from those whose plot is corner plot or in the main road or facing the park etc.13 . As per the knowledge of the complainants, there is neither Approved Lay-out of complete 4500 acres, nor lay out plan has been approved for sector 7, 15, 16 and 17, NH-24, Ghaziabad where the plots were lo be allotted by the company. Even no provisional allotment can be done by the Colonizer/Builder and if the same has been done, it attracts section 420 & 406 and other punishable sections of IPC. 14. Moreover, the Accused Company and its Directors in order to raise funds from the market for their undergoing projects came out with a new fraudulent plan Called Wave Hi-Tech City, NH-24, Ghaziabad and the company & its directors collected huge amount of money from the buyers with malafide intention of not transferring /delivering or part with the possession of land. In fact they pressurized the buyers so much to pay that few even took personal loans from bank to clear the dues. Right from the beginning the company & its directors had dishonest and fraudulent intentions which clearly are borne out from their subsequent conduct and actions. The Phase II of the project has not been started and the same has now been included in the Greater Noida Area in RERA recently whereas they have always been mentioning the location as Ghaziabad. The company & its directors were aware that they would not get possession of land and despite that they continued collecting money from the various buyers including complainants. As per recent news article UP Government has apparently allowed farmer to sell land directly to prospective buyer as Wave has not paid the money and has been long overdue. The money collected has been, mis appropriated/converted and diverted towards the other projects of the accused/ Directors. Further, the accused had no intention to honor the terms since inception. Directors and senior officials are the beneficiary of the money collected from the Complainant as they were in charge of the functioning of company had done collusion & connivance and hatched a criminal conspiracy with sole object to cheat the innocent complainant/public. The malafide design and ulterior conspiracy is evident from the facts above. The modus operandi has been done to deprive the buyers of their legal rights of ownership/possession by prevailing upon the unsuspecting buyers to sign the standard application forms concealing the terms and conditions by using deception and thereafter rely on certain clause to wriggle out of their promises and to put an end to the letters/agreement/any other documents.15. In this way, there has been false inducement on behalf of the company & its representative. The company has mis represented & given false inducement to the complainants and received money from the complainant as consideration of the plot with an intention of not handing over the plots to the complainants even after more than 11 years. This is cheating, fraud/forgery, etc., which caused wrongful gain to the company and wrongful loss to the complainant attracting the above mentioned sections under IPC. The Agreement executed by the company has been found to be fraudulent with the guilty mind. Thus, company and its officials got the wrongful gain. and on the other hand the complainants has suffered wrongful loss. In view of the above and our earlier representation before EOW, there are serious allegations of fraud, cheating, fabrication, forgery, etc., involving the amount of Approx. 65% to 85% froths each individual buyer and as a group it may go much beyond Rs. 100 Crores making wrongful gain to the company, its directors/shareholder and wrongful loss to the complaints .You are therefore requested to register the FIR against the subject mentioned persons . Thanking you Yours faithfully, Complainants:- K . Ramesh and Kaveri Ramesh And 19 others name with signature . To The Duty office P.S .EOW ,Mandir Marg New Delhi IT is Summited that a complainant from Sh. K Ramesh And Others ,Vide No 4809/DCP /EOW ,Date .12/10/2017 was received in the EOW. The enquiry was conducted the Undersigned .From the enquiry conducted contents A the complaint Prime facie a Criminal case is made out, hence a case u/s 420/406/120B IPC registered investigated handed our to me undersigned . The rukka has been handed over to you Date and time of occurrence - onward Feb 2005 Place of occurrence - M -4 mezzanine Floor South Extension Part -II New Delhi - 110049 Date And Time of Hended over Rukka lnsp Umesh Sharma D-151. PIS NO 16970119 PS EOW Action taken at police station at this time lnsp Umesh Sharma D-151. PIS NO 16970119 PS EOW came in the police station and produced the above mentioned complaint for the registration of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original Rukka is being handed over to lnsp Umesh Sharma D-151. PIS NO 16970119 PS EOW for further investigation. Copy of FIR will be delivered to concerned officers through OAK.SI /DO..”
69. It is noted that the aforesaid FIR was compounded on the basis of settlement under Section 320 of the CrPC by the Court concerned vide order dated 19th November, 2019 and the accused persons, including the petitioner herein were acquitted. Relevant paragraphs of the said order are as under:
“..Heard. Perused.
In the present case, the complainant has amicably settled the matter with the accused and the accused has already settled with other victims and undertakes to compensate the remaining victims.
In view of the same, the application under section 320 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of accused is allowed. Matter is allowed to be compounded. Accused persons are acquitted for offences under sections 406/420/120B IPC. File be consigned to record room...”
70. Thereafter, another FIR no. 49/2021 was registered at the respondent no. 1 EOW at the instant of one individual investor, thereby, alleging that the petitioner company lured the investors and accepted their money, however, despite lapse of inordinate delay and payment of 65% - 85% of money, the developer has failed to hand over the possession. It was further alleged that the developer has siphoned off the funds deposited by the investors and had increased the project land area from 1500 Acres to 4500 Acres without necessary approvals. It was also alleged in the said FIR that the petitioner initially took payments in its name, however, later on the payments were taken in the name of one new entity namely ‘M/s Wave City NH24’. The relevant portion of the said FIR is as under:
“..10/10/2019 To, Deputy Commissioner of police ALBR Department, Mandir Marg, EOW. New Delhi, 110001 SUB-Plot Booked in Uppal Chadha Hitech Developers Pvt Ltd in Ghaziabad in 2006 SHALINI GUPTA AGED 47 YEARS REG. NO. 2522. dated 18/12/2005. PROVISIONAL PLOT NO. 1207 IN CREST WOOD ENCLAVE , SECTOR 15. Amount Paid Rs 12.70.760.00 CHARU RASTOGI AGED 45 YEARS REGN NO. 2521dated 18/12/2005 4N1 V PROVISIONAL PLOT NO.996 IN CREST WOOD ENCLAVE SECTOR 15 Amount paid Rs 13,02.743.00 USHA RASTOGI AGED 72 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN) REGN NO. 2520 dated 18/12/2005. PROVISIONAL PLOT NO.618, CREST WOOD ENCLAVE, SECTOR 15 Rs 13.02,743.00 PAID SUDHA GUPTA . 71 YEARS (SENIOR CITZEN) REGN. NO. 2523 dated 18/12/2005. PROVISIONAL PLOT NO.644 CRESTWOOD ENCLAVE , SECTOR 15, Rs 12,70,760.00 PAID Complaint against following persons for Registration of FIR (1) M/s, Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. LTD., having its office M-4, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi-110049, and its directors namely (2) Harmandeep Singh Kandhari R/o- C-1943, Sector-44, NOIDA-201301, UP (3) Mr. Rajinder Singh Chadha (Rio-21, Oak Drive Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi) (4) Mr. Manpreet Singh Chadha (R/o- 21, Oak Drive Chhatapur Farm, New Delhi), (5) Mr. Gurjit Singh Kochar (B-11, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi), (6) Kritika Gupta , Mr Amit Miital, Mr R.K Pathak.Mr Alok Agnihotri, Mr R.K JAIN, (7) other officials/persons involved in this crime under section 420, 406, 469,468, 471 & 120 B of IPC.Sir,The present complaint is preferred against M/s. Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt Ltd having its office at M-4, Mezzanine Floor.South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi- 110049 and its Directors, after suffering for 13 years at the hands of the Accused with no visible end to this abuse in sight. 1. That since the launch of their project in 2006, Uppal Chadha Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd's management and decision makers (current/Ex-Directors, sales and marketing team) have been playing with the investor's hard earned money and consequently I request you to look into this matter. 2. The facts leading to the present complaint are as under: a. That in the year 2003 the •Ghaziabad Development Authority (GOA) formulated a policy for the development of a Hi-Tech City thereby leveraging a platform to the real estate developers to develop the hi-tech and smart townships with modern facilities in district Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Said policy was passed vide Govt. Order No. 6057/9-A-2003-34-VIVDH/03 Ft. 22.11.03 b. That the policy of the GOA was widely circulated across all leading newspapers in the state of Uttar Pradesh thus generated interest amount the general public c. That in the month of October 2005, the Agents/Brokers of Uppal Chadha. Hi Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd started approaching the public with a early bird hooking discount offer on plots in their proposed Hi-Tech Township project at Ghaziabad NH 24. The following facilities and amenities were described by agents / brokers I . Location near the NH 24, 8 lane expressway; ii 10 km from delhi border; iii. 7km from indirapuram/Noida; iv Gated boundary, v. Audio Video security; vi. All in house facilities; vii. Independent water/electric system viii. Golf Course; xiv. Helipads; x. T international school, college, shopping malls; xi xi. Plots, villas, apartments; xii. 24 ltr to 100 mtr wide roads; xiii. Metro train through two routes. Xiv. Possession within 18 months from the date of booking; d. That project looked extremely promising especially with the host of propaganda made by the Developer Company and its Directors through Newspapers, marketing associates of the Accused Company, promise of world class amenities at the Hi tech City, the Directors, Marketing Agents & office sales staff of the Accused Company further allured me by showing brochures & layout plan for the Wave City (High Tech Township Project) of about 1500 acres. The possession of plot was to be given within (eight)8 months from the date of allotment as per the Accused Company documents and the booking was done at the Company's office situated at 33, Community Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025.F .That the Directors of the Accused Company categorically through the Registration Form for Expression of Interest promised the following to the Complainant at the time of accepting the booking amount; I Discounted negotiated price; ii. Provisional allotment to be granted within eight (8) months from the date of execution of Registration Form for Expression of Interest by the Accused Company Believing the above representations of the accused company and its Directors and in pursuit of owing a dream plot and to lead a quality life, the Complainants paid an initial booking amount to the Accused company and its Directors. The accused company and its directors made the complainants sign a two page "Registration Form for Expression of Interest" (copies enclosed) and receipt against the booking was also issued by Accused company/Directors (Copy enclosed). 3. That the Directors and the Accused Company neither had the project land nor any license from the Government w.r.t the Hi Tech Township project at the time of accepting the money but believing all the information, representations, assurances and promises to be true and relying on the brand UPPAL Group and subsequently WAVE group, invested our hard earned money in the plots under the Accused Company's Hi Tech Township Project. 4. That the Directors of the Accused Company failed to keep their promise of offering the provisional allotment of the plot even after lapse of 15 months from the date of booking or refund money with promised interest. Thereafter feeling deceived and dejected the Complainants approached the Accused Company for refund of invested money along with interest. However, the Directors of the Accused Company through their hired bouncers and anti-social elements never allowed the Complainants to meet them personally. As such money invested was never returned by the Directors and the Accused Company. 5 That the developer had malafide intention from the beginning which can be ascertained by the fact that the developer while took the signature of buyer/Allotee never signed or put their company seal in our copy 6. On 16th October.2006 the Complainants received a letter stating that (1) the Detailed Project Report had been approved by the UP Government and (2) The Master Plan is ready and (3) The funds for acquisition for the township project have already been deposited with the Government. We visited the office of the Company at New Friends Colony, New Delhi to inquire about details of the allotment, but were always told that since it was such a huge and ambitious project which will take some time. At this stage, the undersigned Complainants felt that they have been deceived but again the complainants were convinced & assured regarding the handing over of the plots very soon and that too within the time as promised. At this juncture they were provided with a C D containing the animated graphics of the proposed Hi Tech Township, the contents of which are indeed mesmerizing. 7. That on and around 30th November 2009, the complainants received a letter stating that all necessary licenses and approvals were received, the first phase of 1500 Acres had been approved by the government and the details about sectors and plots were being- finalized with- them government but the allotted only to registered applicants. 8. Initially they have taken money in the name of Uppal Chadha HiTech Developers Pvt Ltd but on and around 15th June 2011, we suddenly received a demand letter attached herewith) signed by one Mr. Girish Gulla, Vice President of the Accused Company. To our shock and surprise the name of the company, the township and the address of the company were all changed and NOW ALL CHEQUE PAYMENTS WERE SOUGHT IN A NEW ENTITY NAMELY "WAVE CITY NH24". Last payment OF AROUND Rs 700,00.00 to Rs 8,00,000.00 we all had made in march 2012, in the name of "WAVE CITY NH 24"We also learned that the Company Had accepted 65%-85% money in lump sum from other applicants and unilaterally chose to allot Phase 1 to such applicants who paid money in 2011 only while keeping old applicants (Complainant in this case) in the dark and thereby depriving our right for first allotment. When we raised objection to this it was informed by the Developer that the size of the above mentioned township project had increased from 1500 to 4500 Acres hence we would also get our plots shortly. 10-Till March 2012 , all the above applicants has paid the following amounts by account payee cheques.Now We want to refund our money along with interest @18% p.a which they have charged from customers etc. as.follows: 1-Original Application SHALINI GUPTA REGISTRATION NO. 2522 Sr No. Date Che. No. Bank Name & partculars Amount paid Interest @18% P.A Total amount due as on 10/10/2019 1- 03/11/2005 Application Received 2- 18/12/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No. 2522, Ch. No. 060713 dated 03/11/2005 drawn on Jammu & Kasmir bank Ltd 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00 3-07/03/2006 Ch. No. 060733 drawn on J& K Bank Ltd dated 03/01/2006 187500.00 455625.00 643125.00 4- 02/05/2006 Ch. 060747 drawn on Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd 20/04/2006 187500.00 438750 626250.00 5-03/04/2012 Amount Paid as Installment 708260.00 956151.00 1664411.00 6- 14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied by Shalini Gupta 7- 2014 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE (S) ARRANGEMENT 8-CLAIM FOR MENTAL HARRASEMENT ETC 15,00,000.00 5093786.00 2- Original Application USHA RASTOGI REGISTRATION NO. 2520 Sr No. Date Che. No. Bank Name & partculars Amount paid lnterest@18% Total amount due as on 10/10/2019 1-03/11/2005 Application Received 2- 04/11/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No. 2522, Ch. No. 493591 dated 03/11/2005 drawn on SYNDICATE BANK 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00 3- 07/03/2006 Ch. No. 0323780 drawn on SYNDICATE BANK dated 31/01/2006 187500.00 455625.00 643125.00 4-02/05/2006 Ch. 337536drawn On syndicate bank 02/05/2006 187500.00 438750.00 626250.00 5-03/04/2012 Amount Paid AS Installment CH 726705 SYNDICATE BANK 740243.00 999328.00 1739571.00 6-14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied by USGA RASTOGI 7- 2924 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE(S) ARRANGEMENT CLAIM FOR MENTAL HARRASEMENT 1500000.00 5168946.00 3 Original Application SUDHA GUPTA REGISTRATION NO. 2523 Sr No. Date Che. No. Bank Name & particulars Amount paid Interest @18% Total amount due as on 10/10/2019 1- 03/11/2005 Application Received 2- 18/12/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No. 2522, Ch. No. 374722 dated 04/11/2005 drawn on STATE BANK OF INDIA 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00 3-07/03/2006 Ch. No. 374721 drawn on STATE BANK OF INDIA dated 31/01/2006 187500.00 455625 643125.00 4-02/05/2006 Ch. 374723 drawn on STATE BANK OF INDIA 30/04/2006 187500.00 438750.00 626250.00 5-03/04/2012 Amount Paid AS Installment CH. 677770 STATE BANK OF !NOIA 708260.00 956151.00 1664411.00 6-14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied by SUDHA GUPTA 7-2014 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE(S) ARRANGEMENT CLAIM FOR MENTAL HARASSEMENT 1500000.00 5093786.00 4- Original Application CHARU RASTOGI REGISTRATION NO. 2521 Sr No. Date Che. No. Bank Name & particulars Amount paid Interest Total amount due as on 10/10/2019 1- 03/11/2005 Application Received 2-04/11/2005 Receipt issued vide Registration No. 2522, Ch. No. 424528 dated 1,87,500.00 472500.00 660000.00 03/11/2005 drawn on HDFC 3- 07/03/2006 Ch. No. 424529 drawn on HDFC BANK dated 31/01/2006 187500.00 455625.00 643125.00 4- 02/05/2006 Ch. 337535 drawn on SYNDICATE BANK 03/05/2006 187500.00 438750.00 626250.00 5- 03/04/2012 Amount Paid AS Installment CH 038846 drawn on1 & K BANK LTD 740243.00 999328.00 1739571.00 6-14/11/2013 Application for allotment applied by Shalini Gupta 7- 2014 RESIDENTIAL PLOT ALLOTEE(S) ARRANGEMENT CLAIM FOR MENTAL HARASEMENT 1500000.00 5168946.00 The Uppal Chandha Hi tech Developers pvt ltd has not allotted any confirm Plot to the above named persons Only provisional Allotment has been made . They have started development in last 5-6 years back at site and has developed sector 2.3.4.5.6.7.and already has done Registry in the name of Customers in the year 2016 onwards . They are also developing some portion of Group Housing in 2014 and also doing Registry of flats from 2017 onwards, but no confirm plot allotted to the above said persons. All the above persons were cheated by Company since 2006 to till to date. 9. That thereafter, the complainant also tried to seek refund with interest as agreed but to no avail. Although. We were assured that our investment would be safe and that if not immediately; the allotment would be done within a year as development in the township was under progress. Finally in Aug 2012, we were offered allotment in an installment plan, no agreement was offered, and Peripheral Development Charges were added, which raised the rate per Sq. yard considerably. Along with the payment the Accused Company through its Directors has also collected the Service Charge and that same charges were deposited with the government Account or not is also suspicious. Now even after more than 11 years and 65% to 85% payment we are yet to get possession of the assured plot. 10. The Directors of the Accused Company and its employees apparently have succeeded in conniving and fraudulently siphoning our hard earned money from M/s. UPPAL CHADDHA HI TECH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD TO THEIR NEW ENTITY NAMELY M/s. WAVECITY NH24 or to such other project of the group. If the investigation and the forensic audit of the documents of the Accused Company and their Directors are done after the registration of FIR, many other complainants will join as there may be the lump-sum forgery of more than 1 Lacs crores by the Accused Company, its directors & employees. It is also pertinence to mention that the accused persons are apparently involved in taking money from the several people, siphoning huge amount of funds from the present company to another. 11. As on today, no approved developed plots as per law are available with the Accused Company and farmers are seen farming in their land. In fact, there is neither requisite permission from the Competent Authority nor the work of project is going on and there are no chances of completion of project in the near future because we understand the project land in question is in the possession of the respective farmers and they are cultivating their land. One Ms. Kajal Chibber, Manager Sales, who had been working with the company probably since last 8 years and apparently knows the real facts of the company, had revealed the above information. 12. When the Complainant took out the maps and demanded to identify the buyers plot on the ground Ms. Kajal Chibber admitted that there were no plots, the map was just design and no sectors are existing. The company has already collected Approx. about 65% to 85% plus other periphery charges from the Complaints by then and the details of total collection is annexed herewith. When the plots are not even available how developer can charge periphery charges from buyers? Also malafide intention of builder is further evident from the fact that they have charged preferential location charge from all the buyers instead of charging only from those whose plot is corner plot or in the main road or facing the park etc. 13. As per the knowledge of the complainants, there is neither Approved Lay-out of complete 4500 acres, not lay out plan has been approved for sector , 15, 16 and 17, NH-24, Ghaziabad where the plots were to be allotted by the company. Even no provisional allotment can be done by the Colonizer/Builder and if the same has been done, it attracts section 420 & 406 and other punishable sections of IPC. 14. Moreover, the Accused Company and its Directors in order to raise funds from the market for their undergoing projects came out with a new fraudulent plan Called Wave Hi-Tech City, NH-24, Ghaziabad and the company ,& its directors collected huge amount of money from the buyers with malafide intention of not transferring/delivering or part with the possession of land. In fact they pressurized the buyers so much to pay that few even took personal loans from bank to clear the dues. Right from the beginning the company & its directors had dishonest and fraudulent intentions which clearly are borne out from their subsequent conduct and actions. The Phase II of the project has not been started and the same has now been included in the Greater Noida Area in RERA recently whereas they have always been mentioning the location as Ghaziabad. The company & its directors were aware that they would not get possession of land and despite that they continued collecting money from the various buyers including complainants. As per recent news article UP Government has apparently allowed farmer to sell land directly to prospective buyer as Wave has not paid the money and has been long overdue. The money collected has been, Misappropriated/converted and diverted towards the other projects of the accused/Directors. Further, the accused had no intention to honor the terms since inception. Directors and senior officials are the beneficiary of the money collected from the Complainant as they were in charge of the functioning of company had done collusion & connivance and hatched a criminal conspiracy with sole object to cheat the innocent complainant public. The malafide design and ulterior conspiracy is evident from the facts above. The modus operandi has been done to derive the buyers of their legal of ownership/possession by prevailing upon the unsuspecting buyers to sign the standard application forms concealing the terms and conditions by using deception and thereafter rely on certain clause to wriggle out of their promises and to put an end to the letter/agreement/any other documents. 15. In this way, there has been false inducement on behalf of the company & its representative. The company has Misrepresented & given false inducement to the complainants and received money from the complaint as consideration of the plot with an intention of not handing over the plots to the complainants even more than 11 years. This is cheating, fraud/forgery, etc., which caused wrongful gain to the company and wrongful loss to the complainant attracting the above mentioned sections under IPC. The Agreement executed by the company has been found to be fraudulent with the guilty mind. Thus, company and its officials got the wrongful gain, and on the other hand the complainant has suffered wrongful loss. In view of the above and our earlier representation before EOW, there are serious allegations of fraud, cheating, fabrication, forgery, etc., involving the amount of Approx. 65% to 85% froths each individual buyer and as a group it may go much beyond Rs. 100 Crores making wrongful gain to the company, its directors/shareholder and wrongful loss to the complaints. You are therefore requested to register the FIR against the subject mentioned persons. Thanking you yours faithfully, Complainants:- Sd/English 1-SHALINI GUPTA D 105 SOUTY CITY URGAON. Mo.09810663256 2- CHRU RASTOGI B 42/2 EAST OF KAI LASH NEW DELHI 110065 09810663256 3- USHA RASTOGI B 42/2/ EAST OF KAILASH NEW DELHI 110065 Mo.09810162742 4-SUDHA GUPTA D 105 SOUTH CITY 1 GURGAON , HARYANA. Mo. 09810663256 COPY TO, 1-Shri Narendra Modi Ji, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India South Block, Raisina Hills, New Delhi 110001 09810663256 2. Shri Amit Shah Ji Hon'ble Home Minister of India North Block, New Delhi 110001 3. The Commissioner of police , Police Head Quarter, New Delhi110001 4. The Secretary, Union Home Ministry, North Block, New Delhi. 5. The Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development Authority Vikas Path, Near Old Bus Stand, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 6-The Senior Suprintendent of Police Collectorate Ghaziabad ,CZ58, Hapur Road, Old Block C, Sector 18, Kavi Nagar, Pradesh 201002 Ghaziabad, Uttarpradesh 201002 7- The Hon'ble Chief Minister of Uttarpradesh 5, Kali Das Marg Lucknow, 226002, UttarPradesh 8- The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Delhi High Court, New Delhi 9- The Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi 110001 10- The Chief Minister , Chief Minister Office, Delhi Goverenment , DELHI. To, The Duty Officer P .S. EOW Delhi Sir, It is submitted that present complaint of Mrs Shalini Gupta was received at EOW vide reference No. 0-8052/19. After conducting of the enquiry Prima-Facie offence U/s 420/406/120-B IPC is made out. Kindly register a case U/s 420/406/120-B IPC and investigation of the case be handed over to me as per directions of the Senior Officers. Date and time of occurrence: Since Years 2003 Onwards pace of occurrence: At M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-tech Developers Pvt. Ltd M-4, South Extension New Delhi. Date & time of presenting Rukka- 5.30 PM Sd/English SI Ajay Moral Sec VI/EOW Delhi 0-3383, PIS 28060399. Action taken at police station at this time SI Ajay Moral Sec VI/E0W, D-3383, PIS 28060399, Mandir Marg, New Delhi came at duty officer room of police station EOW and produced the above mentioned complaint for the registration of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original Rukka is being handed over to SI Ajay Moral Sec VI/EOW, D- 3383, PIS 28060399, Mandir Marg, New Delhi for further investigation. Copy of FIR will be delivered to concerned officers through OAK. ASI/DO..”
71. The aforesaid FIR was quashed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties vide order dated 22nd December, 2022. Relevant portion of the same is as under:
“..The matter has been received on transfer.
This is a petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 49/2021 dated 12.03.2021 u/s 420/406/120B IPC registered at PS EOW. As per the FIR, it is stated that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had booked flats with petitioner No. 1 in the year 2005 and had made substantial payments towards booking of the said flats. Since the land was to be allotted by the UP Gove1nment, it was allotted much later in time. The petitioner was unable to comply with its obligation. Hence, the FIR.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties have arrived at a settlement wherein the flats have been given to the petitioners and they are satisfied with the allotment and do not wish to prosecute the FIR any further.
The petitioners are present in Court and are identified by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Adv.
The authorized representative of the respondent, Mr. Sandeep Gupta is present and is making the statement for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 5.
The parties state that they have arrived at the settlement out of their own free will without any threat, pressure, coercion or undue influence.
Mr. Gupta states that all the respondents are satisfied with the settlement and do not have any dispute with the petitioners and have no objection to the FIR being quashed.
In this view of the matter, I am of the view that it is in the interest of justice I am convinced that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice. This should not be treated as a legal precedent as in this case, the proceedings are quashed as the respondent has decided to put a quietus to the matter. The Court does not see any fruitful purpose if criminal proceedings are permitted to be prosecuted any further. It is a fit case for quashing. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to continue the proceedings.
However, the FIR is of the year 2021 and considerable time of police and judicial time has been wasted on account of commission and omission on behalf of the parties. After investigation, the police has filed a chargesheet.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner must pay some costs. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 50,000/- each to DHCLSC which shall be utilised for counselling POCSO victims.
Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- each to Delhi Police Welfare Fund.
The cost shall be paid within 4 weeks from today. The receipt of the cost shall be placed on record failing which the file shall be placed before the Court.
With these directions, the FIR No. No. 49/2021dated 12.03.2021 u/s 420/406/120B IPC registered at PS EOW, is hereby quashed.
The petition is disposed of…”
72. Subsequent to the above, another FIR no. 55/2023 was registered with the respondent no. 1 EOW at the instance of a complaint made by one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta against the petitioner and several others. The complainant in the said FIR alleged that the developer had failed to handover the possession of the project despite the inordinate delay and acceptance of more than 65% - 85% of money. Further, initially the petitioner took payments in the name of the petitioner company itself, however, later on, with mala fide intentions, the petitioner demanded money in the name of one new entity namely ‘M/s Wave City NH24’. The content of the said FIR also reveals that the complainant had alleged that the petitioner increased the project area from 1500 Acres to 4500 Acres without any requisite permission. Relevant portion of the same is as under:
“..To
Office of The Special Commissioner Of Police Economic Offences Wing
P .S Mandir Marg Complex
New Delhi-110001
SUBJECT: Registration of FIR against accused persons:-
(1) M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. ltd. having its office at Mezzanine Floor, M-4 South Extension Part-II, Delhi-110049 (2) Harmandeep Singh Kandhari S/o Gurdeep Singh Kandhari Rio C-193, Sector 44, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh (3) Rajiv Gupta S/o Chunni Lal Gupta Rio G-68, Pocket G, Sarita Vihar, South Delhi-110076 (4) Ginni Chadha D/o Narender Singh Chadha Rio S-559, Ground Floor, Greater Kailash Part-II, Delhi-110048, (5) Sanjeev Jain S/o Harish Chand Jain Rio 58, Krishan Kuni Extension, Gali no. 2, Part-I, Laxmi Nagar, Shakar Pur Baramad, Delhi-110092, (6) Rahul Chauhan office at Mezzanine Floor, M-4 South Extension Part-II, Delhi-110049 and (7) Manpreet Singh Chadha S/o Gurdeep Singh Chadha Rio 21, Oak Drive, Chattarpur Farm, New Delhi-110074 and (8) other officials/persons involved in crime u/s 420, 406, 468, 469,471, 34, 120B IPC.
Sir,
The present complaint is being filed against the accused no. 1 company, its present directors i.e accused nos. 2 to 6, its ex-director i.e accused no. 7 and other officials/ persons who have cheated public and innocent investors of their hard earned money by luring them to invest in their township projects and have till date not allotted the plots to them including the present complainant.
That in the year 2006 accused no.1 company/ M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. under the directorship and aide of accused no.2/Harmandeep Singh Kandhari and accused no. 7/ Manpreet Singh Chadha had started various Hi-Tech Township projects in Ghaziabad with proposed high-class facilities and amenities of international schools, colleges, hospitals, wide roads, metro connectivity, world class malls and promised possession within 18 months from the date of booking. That the agents and brokers of M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd started approaching the public with early bird discounts and also gave advertisements in the national newspapers giving promising advertisements for registering and booking flats in township projects located in Ghaziabad. That the agents and the directors of M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd allured public at large including the complainant by showing brochures and layout plans of Wave City (Hi-Tech Township Project) spread across 1500 acres and showed them a rosy picture of owning a dream plot and live a quality life in the Hi-Tech city.
That by alluring numerous homebuyers including the complainant in their promises, the agents and the directors of the company made the complainant sign Registration Form for Expression of Interest for 350 sq. yard plot for township at Ghaziabad and receipts against the booking was also issued to the complainant against the payment of booking amount of Rs.7,87,500/- paid at then office of accused no. 1 company at 33, Community Center, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 and the remaining amount at the rate of Rs. 7500/ sq. yard was to be paid upon grant of provisional allotment. That at time of signing the Registration Form for Expression of Interest, the complainant was promised that the provisional allotment shall be granted within 8 months of from the date of execution of the registration form.
That even after the passage of more than an year when no allotment was given to the complainant and several other investors, complainant went to the office of accused no.1 company to know the status of the project and meet with the directors of the company, however, complainant as well as others were again given fake assurances and was not allowed to meet the with the directors of the company. That the complainant on several occasions visited the offices of the accused company but every time only assurances were given and time was sought by the accused persons and their representatives on account that it's a large project and it will take some time.
That in the year 2009, complainant received a letter stating that all licenses and approvals were received and the first phase of 1500 Acre had been approved by the government, and the details about the sectors and plots were being finalised with the government and will be allotted to the registered applicants. Therefore it is pertinent to mention that at the time of booking of the plots, the accused persons neither had the project land in hand nor had the requisite licenses/approvals from the government authority.
That in November 2011, when complainant had lost all hopes of getting the dream plot in the township project in Ghaziabad, a demand letter was received from accused persons to show interest for allotment of plot. Complainant was shocked to find out that now the payments were to be paid in the name of new entity Wave City NH 24 which was previous being paid in the name of M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. Complainant further got to know that accused persons had accepted 65- 85% money in lump-sum from other applicants and unilaterally chose to alot phase 1 to such applicants who paid the money in 2011 only and deprived complainant as well as several others of their right to first allotment.
That being aggrieved and feeling cheated, complainant again approached accused company and its representatives and sought clarifications about the allotment and regarding the payment into the new entity and regarding the time that would be taken for final allotment of their plot and Complainant was assured that the project size has been increased from 1500 acres to 4500 acres and since Complainant is a registered plot owner, the complainant can apply for allotment of their plot at anytime upon submitting the identity proof, payment of Rs.7500/sq. yard. That since the accused company and its representatives did not have ready to allot plots in hand and considering their past behaviour, the complainant decided to exercise the right of allotment of their plot when the plots were readily available with the accused company.
That thereafter, complainant on numerous occasions visited the office of accused persons and even the proposed township, however, on every visit the complainant was told that the plots will be available soon and demanded her to pay some of allotment amount first. During every visit by complainant, she came across hundreds of investors who had paid 85% of the amount and were still running from pillar to post for being allotted the plot in the proposed township.
That due to the cheating and fraud committed by accused persons, an FIR dated 24.01.2018 bearing no. 0016 was got registered with P.S Economic Offence Wing of the Delhi Police against them. That on 03.04.2019, complainant got in touch with Ms. Kajal Chibber, Manager Sales who had been working with the accused company for the past many years who instructed complainant to deposit the various documents for allotment of plot in the Wave City Township project and assured that the allotment of land shall be done within few months. Being convinced by the promises and assurances given by the representatives of the accused persons, complainant through her son Tushar Gupta wrote a mail dated 03.04.2019 to the accused company whereby he uploaded the various documents as asked. Further, complainant also sent the requisite documents as asked by Ms. Kajal Glibber on her whatsapp number (+91-7838381083) on 17.04.2019.
That when no communication was received from the acused persons or their agents, complainant again sent a reminder mail on 02.07.2019 for taking necessary steps for allotment of the plot. However, no response was received from them.
That, subsequently complainant on numerous occasions visited the office of the accused persons, however, the complainant was not given any satisfactory response and was told that the company will take decision on the allotment of the plot.
That in the beginning of year 2020, lockdown was imposed in the country and whenever complainant called and contacted the accused persons or their agents, complainant was informed that due to lockdown no work was being carried out.
That on 09.03.2021 again complainant wrote a reminder mail to the accused persons and received an e-mail confirming the receipt of email and informed that it has been forward to the concerned department and that someone will get back to complainant. However, no further communication was received.
That after further pursuing with accused persons, complainant was often harassed by the representatives and agents of accused persons and finally was told that the plot booking of Complainant had been cancelled by them for non payment of money and that no allotment of plot can be made now. It is submitted that no prior information or communication in this regard was ever made to complainant aggrieved by which Complainant has even wrote to the Chief Minister Secretariat, Uttar Pradesh.
That now complainant has come to know that the accused no. 2 and 3 while being granted by Hon'ble Saket Court in FIR no. 0016/2018 P.S EOW had given an undertaking for settling the grievance of various investors who have been aggrieved by the fraud and cheating committed by accused persons. Further vide order' dated 19.11.2019 while compounding the matter, the accused persons had given an undertaking to the court to compensate the remaining victims. However, hundreds of investors have till date neither been allotted their plots nor any adequate compensation has been given to them thereby committing fraud not only with complainant, investors but also with the Hon'ble Court as well.
That being aggrieved by the acts of the accused persons, the complainant even sent a legal notice to the accused persons through her advocate calling upon the accused persons to settle the grievance of the complainant as had been undertaken by the accused persons before the court however till date no reply or any remedial steps have been taken by them.
From the above facts it is clear that the accused persons have deliberately in connivance with each other have cheated thousand of investors to the tune of 1 00s of crores of rupees and have only settled the matter with a few people only. It is therefore most humbly requested that an FIR against the accused persons be registered under sections u/s 420, 406, 468, 469, 471, 34, 120B IPC. Yours Truly
S/d English Shobhana Gupta W/o Mr Chetan Prakash R/o A-6/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi- 110063, Ph. No. 9810166336
Docs enclosed:
i. Payment Reciepts
ii. Letter of Expression of interest
iii. Mail Conversations with the accused company and its representatives.
iv. FIR dated 24.01.2018 bearing no. 0016 was got registered with P.S Economic Offence Wing.
v. Orders passed by Saket Court in FIR dated 24.01.2018 bearing no. 0016 was got registered with P.
S Economic Offence Wing.
vi. Legal notice sent to accused persons.
To,
The Duty Officer,
PS-EOW, New Delhi
The present complaint of Ms. Shobhna Gupta w/o Sh. Chetan Prakash R/o A-6/5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi Age 60 years, was received at EOW and preliminary enquiry into the allegations levelled was instituted. From the contents of complaint & preliminary enquiry conducted, prima facie commission of offences punishable u/s 409/420/120-B IPC is made out. I am presenting the rukka to you. Kindly register a case and copy of FIR along with original rukka be handed over to me for the purpose of investigation. Date & time of offence : since 2006 onwards.
Place of occurrence: M-4, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi
Date & time of presenting: 10.07.2023 at 5:30 PM Sd/English lnsp. Kamal Kishor, Sec-VI/EOW/Delhi, No. D-4492, PIS No. 16080333 Action taken at police station at this time lnsp. Kamal Kishor, No. D-4492, PIS No. 16080333, SecVI/ EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi came at duty officer room of police station- EOW and produced the above mentioned complaint for the registration of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original endorsement is being handed over to lnsp. Kamat Kishor, No. D-4492, PIS No. 16080333, Sec-VI/EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi for further investigation. Copy of FIR will be delivered to concerned officers through OAK. HC/DO…”
73. The aforesaid FIR no. 55/2023 was quashed on the basis of compromise by this Court vide order dated 14th October, 2024. Relevant portion of the same is as under:
“..1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) (currently under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS)) has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of FIR bearing No. 55/2023 registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”).
2. The petitioner No.1/company through its Authorized Signatory Mr. Atul Kumar Gahlaot and the petitioners No.2 to 6, who are the Directors, Ex-Directors and other officials of the petitioner No.1/company, are present before this Court (through Video Conferencing) and have been identified by his counsel and Investigating Officer Inspector Mr. Kamal Kishor, Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi. The respondent No.2/complainant is also present in the Court (through Video Conferencing) and has been identified by her counsel and the Investigating Officer.
3. On the query made by this Court, respondent no.2/complainant has categorically stated that she has entered into compromise on her own free will and without any pressure. It is also stated by respondent No.2 that she has received the entire amount agreed upon as per the settlement and the entire dispute has been amicably settled between the parties.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 and had launched a project namely, ‘Wave City –NH24’ at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No. 2 purchased an Expression of Interest (EOI) dated 2nd February, 2006 in an open market and got the same transferred in her name for allotment of one of the plots in the project of the petitioner no.1/company. The respondent No. 2 had purchased a booking slip from M/s Shree Ank Finhold Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs.7,87,500/-. The petitioner No.1/company vide letter dated 13th June, 2011 intimated the respondent no. 2, as well as several other allottees, regarding the allotment of plots in the projects, and were asked to come forward with certain relevant documents so that allotments could be made. However, the said plot has not been allotted to the respondent No.2. Based on a complaint made by the respondent no. 2, the FIR in question came to be registered.
5. During the pendency of investigation, another letter dated 2nd January, 2024 was issued by the petitioner no.1/company to the respondent no.2, thereby offering to refund the entire amount paid by the respondent no. 2 i.e., Rs. 7,87,500/-, along with an interest @ 10% and an additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Simultaneously, the petitioner no.1/company transferred a total sum of Rs. 21,56,972/-, out of which Rs. 7,87,500 is the principal amount, Rs. 12,69,472/- is the interest amount after deduction of TDS and Rs. 1,00,000/- is the additional compensation, into the bank account of the respondent no. 2. Subsequently, a Deed of Settlement has been entered into between the petitioner No.1/company and the respondent No.2, thereby, recording the terms of the settlement already arrived at as well as a no objection of the respondent No.2 for allowing the present petition. The terms and conditions of the said settlement are mentioned in the Deed of Settlement which is annexed as Annexure P-3 to the petition.
6. It is prayed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties that the instant FIR may be quashed on the basis of the compromise as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303.
7. Mr. Raghuvinder Verma, learned APP for the State submitted that a total of 966 complaints against the petitioner no.1/company were registered with UP RERA, out of which 887 complaints have already been settled. Thus, there is no opposition to the prayer made by the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR in question in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioners have already settled 887 complaints out of 996 complaints along with the amicable settlement between the petitioners and respondent no.2 and having received the entire amount by the respondent no. 2, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Hence, FIR bearing No. 55/2023 registered at the Economic Offences Wing, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 409/420/120B of the IPC and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of...”
74. In view of the aforesaid observations, the principle issue which arises is whether it would be justified to quash the FIR no. 13/2024 in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted hereinabove?
75. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned FIR are as under:
“..To, Special Commissioner of Police Economic Offence Wing, Delhi Police, Mandir Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001 Subject: - Sharing of information u/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 in respect of case M/s Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. (UCHDPL) & others -reg. Sir, Kindly refer to the above subject. 2. In connection with the above cited subject, it is submitted that on the basis of complaint filed by the applicants/investors of Hi Tech Township, The EOW, Delhi Police registered one FIR No. 0016/2018 u/s 420/406/ 120-B IPC against M/s UCHDPL & its Directors and Others for cheating and hatching criminal conspiracy for siphoning -off hard-earned money of innocent investors. As per the facts narrated in the said FIR.it was alleged that M/s UCHDPL and its directors and other employees of the company entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the innocent investors/public at large in guise of allotting them plots on the discounted rates in the prime location of Ghaziabad, UP with false claim of world class facilities and amenities. As per the complainants of the case, the promise of allotment of plots within 8 months from the date of registration was not fulfilled even after the time lapse of 11 years and the hard-earned money of many investors and plot seekers were siphoned-off by the Directors of the company. 2.1 On the basis of above said FIR, ECIR/09/HIU/2019 was recorded by this office for further investigation of the offence under section 3 of the Prevention Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under section 4 of PMLA, 2002. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that money received from retail investors, bulk investors and FDI (for construction and development of said township) has been diverted to other entities/projects for the purposes other than development of Hi Tech City at Ghaziabad thereby generating proceeds of crime. Further, EOW, Delhi Police registered yet another FIR No 0049 dated 12.03.2021 against the builder M/S UCHDPL with similar allegation as in the earlier FIRS on basis of fresh complaints received by them. This FIR was merged in ECIR/09 /HIU /2019 already recorded on the basis FIR No. 16/2018. 3. A search and seizure u/ s 1 7 of PMLA 2002 at various places related to M/s UCHDPL during 18.11.2022 to 22.11.2022 and seizure of various records/ documents and digital devices such as mobile phones, laptops were made. 4. Analysis of seized documents, books of accounts and information furnished by the accused company revealed diversion of fund to its group entities viz M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Suncity Hi-tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. Some of the instances of diversion of funds have been tabulated Below: Diversion of funds from• M/s UCHDPL to M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. Date 08-07-2008 Amount received from M/s UCHDPL 10,25,00,000 Utilization Rs. 4 Cr Advance given to Snow Berry Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. For land purchase at Hyderabad and received back on 08-12- 2008, Rs. 3.17 Cr. Advance given to Victory Infra Build Pvt. Ltd. for land purchase at Hyderabad and received back on 08-12-2008 Rs. 3.08 Cr. Advance given to Saraswati Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. for land purchase at Hyderabad and received back on 03-12-2008 02-03-2009 12 ,00 ,00 ,000 Amount paid for repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate - Rs. 11.9 Cr. 09-03-2009, 15,00,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 24-03-2009, 5,00,00,000 Rs. 5Cr. Advance given to Ramin Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. for land purchase at Hyderabad and received back on 12-06-2009. 27-03-2009. 10,00,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 31-03-2009 2,00,00,000 Advance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd for Mohali Project and received back on July 2013. 02-04-2009, 1,35,00,000 Repayment ofloan to K Sons and Associate. 06-04-2009, 30,00,000 Repayment ofloan to Wave Silver Tower 08-04-2009, 1,00,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 13-04- 2009, 4,50,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 20-04-2009, 4,00,00,000 Rs. 16.75 Lakhs Advance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd and received back on July 2013. Rs. 3.83 Cr Amount given for repayment of loan to K Sons and Associates. 25-04-2009 3,00,00,000 Rs. 4.05 Cr. Advance given to New Fort Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and received back on 12-06-2009 06-08-2009, 50,00,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 20-10-2009, 12,50,00,000 Repayment of loan to K Sons and Associate. 08.02.2010, 35,00,00,000 Advance given to following entities Flamingo Probuild Pvt Ltd- Rs 10.18 er (Received back on 10.10.12) Libra Builtech Pvt Ltd - Rs 12.71 Cr (Received back on 10.10.12) Saffron Town Planners Pvt Ltd - Rs 6.06 Cr (Received back on 10.10.12) Aries Buildwell Pvt ltd - Rs 3.35 Cr (Received back on 11.10.12) Swans Town Planners Pvt Ltd- Rs 2.70 Cr (Received back on 10.10.12) 24-02-2010, 10,05,00,000 Rs. 10.05 Cr Advance given to AB Movies Pvt. Ltd. and received back on March 2010Total 175,95,00,000 Diversion of funds from M/s UCHDPL to M/s Suncity Hi-tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Date Amount received from M/S UCHDPL Utilization 16-09-2010 13,08,476 Amount used to pay salary and other expenses 05-05-2011 1,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 05-05-2011 50,00,000m m Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 05-05-2011 4,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 07-05-2011 4,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at N H24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 10-05-2011 3,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 01-07-2011 2,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 09-07-2011 2,00,00,000 Loan received from M/s UCHDPL and returned the same without using the fund 09-08-2011 1,30,00,000 Used to p"ay GDA for land purchase at NH 24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 03-09- 2011 15,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 26-09- 2011 35,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 27-09-2011 70,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 01-10-2011 85,00,000 Amount paid against interest to Oswal Greentech Limited of Rs. 0.74 Cr. 03-10-2011 25,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS 0.10 Cr. and Electricity connection charges of Rs. 0.05 Cr. and returned Rs. 2.05 Cr. on the same day O 1- 11-2011 20,00,000 Amount paid against interest of Rs. 0.76 Cr. to Oswal Greentech Limited 01-12-2011, 75,00,000 Amount paid against interest to Oswal Greentech Limited of Rs. 0.74 Cr. 16-12-2011 60,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 17-12-2011 20,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 20-12-2011 35,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 21- 2-2011 30,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 22-12-2011 2,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project and returned Rs. 2.70 Cr. on the same day_ 23-12-2011 1,25,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 24-12-2011 l,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 03-01-2012 l,00,00,000 Amount paid to Oswal Greentech Limited against interest of Rs. 0.76 Cr. and returned on the same day 05-01-2012 20,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 05- 01-2012 30 ,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 07-01- 2012 | 20,00,000 Amount paid of Rs. 0.23 Cr. to Rudrabhishek Enterprises Pvt, Ltd. against professional charges 09-01- 2012 40,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project | 12-01-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to customer against booking. 13-01-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to customer against booking. 02-02-2012 18,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 07-02-2012 10,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS 14-02-2012 75,00,000 Amount paid against interest to Oswal Greentech Limited of Rs.0.76 Cr. and returned on the same day 25-02-2012 4,00,000 Booking of plot cancelled in Suncity and reallocate the plot in UCHDPL 27-02-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project | 02-03-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid against interest of Rs. 0.71 Cr. to Oswal Greentech Limited 06-03-2012 4,10,00,000 Amount paid to Tzar Probuild Pvt. Ltd. for Acquisition of Land. 06-03-2012 20,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS 12-03-2012 65,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project | 16-03-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 07-04-2012 20,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 12-04-2012 60,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 12-04-2012 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 25-04-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 01-05-2012 20,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS and returned Rs. 0.70 Cr. on the same day 07-05-2012 10,00,000 Amount used to pay TDS 07- 06-2012 25,00,000 Amount used to payTDS of Rs. 0.21 Cr. 12-06-2012 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 20-06-2012 8,00,000 Booking of plot cancelled in Suncity and reallocate plot in UCHDPL 03-07-2012 75,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project , 04-07-2012 25,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH 124 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 03-08-2012 l ,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 24-11-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to customer against booking. 12-01-2013 3,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 14-01-2013 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for for Suncity Project and returned Rs. 1.00 Cr. on the same day 06-04-2013 40,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 08-04- 2013 5,00 ,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 31-05-2014 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad Suncity Project 31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 31-05-2014 10,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad fora Suncity Project 31-05-2014 5,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition • of land at NH24 Ghaziabad Suncity Project 31-05-2014 5,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad Suncity Project 09-06-2014 25,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad Suncity Project 09-06-2014 5,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 09-06-2014 5,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 29-07-2014 1,50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 29-07-2014 3,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 29-07-2014 3,50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 29-07-2014 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 28-08-2014 1,50,00 ,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 14-10-2014 l,00,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 25-04-2015 29,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project 06-05-2015 2,50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project and returned Rs. 2.79 Cr. on the same day_ 18-01-2016 1,50 ,00 ,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH 24 Ghaziabad for Suncity Project and returned on the same day 29-02-2016 50,00,000 Amount paid for acquisition of land at NH24 Ghaziabad for• Suncity Project 21-03-2016 58,97 ,00,000 Entry transferred from merge company Total 118,42,08,476 Diversion of funds from M/s UCIIDPL, to M/S Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Date Amount received from M/s UCIIDPL Utilization 26-02-2011 25,00,000 Amount paid to Naida for M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. 07-03-2011 50,00,00,000 Amount paid to Naida for M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd 23-03-2011 20,50,00,000. Amount paid to Noida for M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd 06-09-2011 1,00,00,000 Amount refund to customer for Yamuna Expressway Project. 10-02-2012 3,00,000 Amount refund to customer for Yamuna Expressway Project. 07-06-2012 3,20,00,000 Repayment of loan to Wave Silver Tower Pvt. Ltd. 31-07-2012 10,00,000 Amount refund to customer Yamuna Expressway Project. 22-09-2012 2,00,000 Amount refund to customer for Yamuna Expressway Project. 22-09-2012 2,00,000 Amount refund to customer Yamuna Expressway Project. 30-04-2013 3,40,00,000 Adavance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 3.4 Cr. for Mohali Project and received back on July, 2013. 08-05-2013 6,50,00,000 Adavance given to Country Coloniser Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 6.5 Cr. for Mohali Project and received back on July, 2013. 29-06-2013 2,00,00,000 Amount paid to repayment of loan to M/s Manpreet Singh Chadha Total 87,02.00.000 Diversion of funds fromM/S UCHDPL to M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pyt. Ltd. Date Amount received from M/s UCHDP Utilization 10-08-2011 86,00,00,000 Repayment of Loan of Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 12-08-2011 7,45,00,000 Repayment of Loan of Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Total 93, 45,00,000 5. From the above, it is evident that booking amounts collected from investors/homebuyers of the project namely Wave City at NH-24, Ghaziabad has been diverted for the purposes other than development of the said project which resulted in non-completion of the project in time for which the homebuyers had given their money. 6 This Directorate made enquiries with RERA, UP. They have informed vide letter dated 16.03.2023 that total 966 complaints were received against UCHDPL, out of which 887 have been disposed off with directions of refund, mutual. settlement, default, possession etc. Status of compliance of RERA directions are yet to be ascertained. More over 79 complaints are still pending as per RERA. Copy of said letter received from UP, RERA is enclosed. 7 .This Directorate vide its letter dated 14.10.2021 has• written to Housing Commissioner, UP Housing and Development Board, Lucknow, UP regarding violations of Hi Tech Policy (formulated by UP Government) committed by M/s UCHDPL regarding taking money from the public without having any land and without executing any development agreement with GDA. Further, M/S UCHDPL got the approval from UP government vide letter dated 05.09.2006 to purchase/hold land to develop the Hi-tech City in excess of 12.5 acres under section 154 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is pertinent to mention here that M/S UCHDPL got the permission to develop the High Tech City as a single company rather than a consortium. In case of consortium, certain requirements in respect of associate companies and their registration with Sub Registrar before signing of Mo U have not been complied with. The land was first acquired by these 40 companies and then these companies were merged with UCHDPL by an order dated 05.05.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It appears that the real intention of incorporating 40 companies, acquisition of land though them and then their merger with UCHDPL was to aggregate land in UCHDPL by circumventing the Land Ceiling Laws. 8. Further, vide letter dated 04.05.23 received from 0/o ACP, EOW, Delhi Police it has been informed that in case FIR No. 16 / 18, total 7 3 complaints were received and the same were submitted before Hon'ble Court along with the chargesheet. However, no detail of settlement were available in the office of EOW. In case FIR No. 49 /2021, total 77 complainants were received and accused company provided deeds of settlement in respect of 57 complainants. However, only 42complainants have been verified with regard to the settlement. EOW has further informed that they have received a fresh complaint from Ms Shobhna Gupta W /o Mr Chetan Prakash against the accused company viz M/s UCHDPL which is being enquired into. 9. The above information is being shared u/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 for necessary action against M/S UCHDPL & others at your end. Further, it is requested that action taken, if any, on the basis of information shared may kindly be informed. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority. Encl: As above in sealed cover. Yours faithfully S/d English (Sunil Kumar Yadav) Additional Director of Enforcement (HIU-1) B Block, Pravartan Bhawan, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi Inspector Dharmendra for sign to register the Case u/s 406/420/ 120B IPC and investigation the Case S / d English ACP / Sec VII The instant Complaint has been interested to me for registration of FIR. Accordingly,' Do PS - EOW is requested to register an FIR U /S 406/420/ 120B IPC and hand over The investigation to me. S/d English Insp. Dharmendra Section-VII/EOW No-D-4668 PIS NO 16090051 Action taken at police station at this time Insp. Dharmendra, Belt No. - D-4668, PIS 16090051, Section-VII, EOW, New Delhi came at duty officer room of police station-EOW and produced the above mentioned complaint for the registration of case. Case has been registered. Copy of FIR and original endorsement is being handed over to Insp. Dharmendra, Belt No. - D-4668, PIS 16090051,Section-VII, EOW, New Delhi for further investigation. Copy of FIR will be delivered to concerned officers through DAK. HC/DO...”
76. Upon perusal of the aforesaid extracts of the impugned FIR, it is observed that the Additional Director of ED had shared information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to the Special Commissioner of Police, EOW, with respect to the case of M/s Uppal Chaddha Hi-Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner herein) and others. For reference, the relevant portion of Section 66(2) of the PMLA is reproduced hereunder:
“66. Disclosure of information.—2 [(1)] The Director or any other authority specified by him by a general or special order in this behalf may furnish or cause to be furnished to— ***
***
[(2) If the Director or other authority specified under sub-section (1) is of the opinion, on the basis of information or material in his possession, that the provisions of any other law for the time being in force are contravened, then the Director or such other authority shall share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action.]..”
77. It was shared by the ED, vide letter dated 27th May, 2023, that based on complaints filed by the individual investors, an FIR no. 16/2018, under Sections 420/406/120B of the IPC was registered against the petitioner and its directors, accusing them of criminal conspiracy, cheating and siphoning off funds from innocent investors.
78. It was stated by the ED in its letter under Section 66(2) of the PMLA that the allegation was that the petitioner and its directors had induced the public to invest in plots in Ghaziabad at discounted rates, promising world class facilities, however, the allotment of plots was delayed significantly, and the investors’ hard-earned money was misappropriated.
79. Thereafter, an ECIR was filed for further investigation under Section 3 of the PMLA and the investigation revealed that money received from the retail investors, bulk investors, and foreign direct investment for the development of the Hi-Tech City in Ghaziabad was diverted to other projects, generating proceeds of crime.
80. Additionally, on the basis of fresh complaints received by the investors, on similar allegations as contained in the FIR no. 16/2018, a second FIR no. 49/2021 was registered by the EOW, merging with the ECIR. Investigations continued and a search operation was conducted in November, 2022 leading to seizure of documents, record and digital devices from the petitioner and related entities. It was stated by the ED that upon analysis of the seized documents, books of accounts, and digital devices, it was established that funds raised for the Hi-Tech City project were diverted to various group entities such as M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. the ED stated the following details with regard to fund diversion:
• Diversion to M/s Chadha Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. - Large sums were diverted for purposes including land acquisition and repayment of loans, with money being moved across different companies and projects, particularly in Hyderabad and other regions. The total amount involved in these transactions exceeds Rs.100 Crores (approximately), details of which is mentioned in the FIR.
• Diversion to M/s Suncity Hi-Tech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Significant amounts were used for acquiring land in Ghaziabad, including multiple payments for land at NH24, Ghaziabad, and repayment of loans to other entities such as M/s Oswal Greentech Limited. The total amount involved in these transactions exceeds Rs. 100 Crores (approximately), details of which is mentioned in the FIR.
• Diversion to M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. - Funds totaling to Rs. 90 Crores (approximately) (details mentioned in the FIR) were diverted to M/s Wave Infratech, including repayments for loans and advances for projects such as the Yamuna Expressway Project.
• Diversion to M/s Wave Megacity Centre Pvt. Ltd. - This company received funds totaling to over Rs. 90 Crores (approximately) (details mentioned in the FIR), which were used for loan repayments and other corporate expenses.
81. It was further stated by the ED that the diversion of funds for purposes other than the development of the Hi-Tech City project in Ghaziabad has led to a significant delay in the completion of the project. Investors who had entrusted their hard-earned money for the development of this project have faced severe financial losses and non-fulfillment of the promises made to them. Further, according to information obtained from the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), a total of 966 complaints were filed against the petitioner herein, with 887 disposed of by issuing directions for refunds, mutual settlements, and other outcomes and 79 complaints are still pending.
82. In addition, vide letter dated 4th May, 2023, received from EOW, it was informed to ED that in FIR no. 16/2018, total 73 complaints were received and the same were submitted before the Court concerned along with chargesheet. However, no details of settlement were available in the office of EOW. In FIR no. 49/2021, 77 complaints were received and accused company has provided details of settlement in respect of 57 complainants and only 42 complainants have been verified with regard to the settlement.
83. The status of RERA’s directions is yet to be ascertained. Moreover, a letter from the Directorate to the Housing Commissioner of UP dated 14th October, 2021 highlight violations by the petitioner, including accepting public money without proper land acquisition and without executing development agreements with Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA). The company received approvals for land acquisition exceeding the limit set under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Further investigation revealed that the petitioner’s land acquisitions through multiple companies, followed by their merger were part of a strategy to circumvent legal restrictions.
84. Therefore, considering the scale of the alleged fraud and diversion of funds, the ED had requested that the EOW may look into the matter and take appropriate legal action as per the provisions of PMLA, 2002 as the scale of the misappropriation warrants urgent attention to protect the interests of the investors and ensure that the due process is followed to bring the responsible individuals to justice. It was also informed that EOW has received fresh complaint from one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta which has led to the registration of FIR no. 55/2023 against the petitioner.
85. In conclusion, the ED had stated that the aforesaid information is being shared under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA and it was requested that ‘action taken, if any, on the basis information shared may kindly be informed’. Following the same, the EOW took the aforesaid shared information as complaint and on the basis of the said complaint, the impugned FIR was registered.
86. This Court has meticulously perused the entire material available on record including the previous FIRs, the quashing/compounding orders, impugned FIR, letter dated 27th May, 2023, ECIR, contents made in the petition, reply, rejoinder and the status report as well as the reply to the status report.
87. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned FIR on several grounds, including the non-application of mind by the ED, the mechanical forwarding of the complaint to the EOW, the lack of any independent opinion regarding the violation of any other law, and the complete absence of any fresh or credible material warranting the registration of a new FIR. It has been contended that these grounds strike at the very root of the impugned FIR and render it unsustainable in law.
88. Here, the question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether re-investigation of similar offence/similar grounds is permissible just because a new FIR has been registered which contains same set of allegations against the same person?
89. With respect to the same, while following one of its earlier judgments passed in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. (2013) 6 SC 384 observed that second FIR for the same offence or occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences was not permissible. The relevant extracts of the same are as under:
“15. It has to be examined on the merits of each case whether a subsequently registered FIR is a second FIR about the same incident or offence or is based upon distinct and different facts and whether its scope of inquiry is entirely different or not. It will not be appropriate for the court to lay down one straitjacket formula uniformly applicable to all cases. This will always be a mixed question of law and facts depending upon the merits of a given case.
16. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] the Court was concerned with the registration of a second FIR in relation to the same facts but constituting different offences and where ambit and scope of the investigation was entirely different. Firstly, an FIR was registered and even the charge-sheet filed was primarily concerned with the offence of conspiracy to cheat and misappropriation by the two accused. At that stage, the investigating agency was not aware of any conspiracy to send the pillars (case property) out of the country. It was also not known that some other accused persons were parties to the conspiracy to obtain possession of the pillars from the court, which subsequently surfaced in London. Earlier, it was only known to the police that the pillars were stolen as the property within the meaning of Section 410 IPC and were in possession of the accused person (Narang brothers) in London.
***
20. In T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , the Court explained that an information given under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code is commonly known as the first information report (FIR). Though this term is not used in the Code, it is a very important document. The Court concluded that second FIR for the same offence or occurrence giving rise to one or more cognizable offences was not permissible. In this case, the Court discussed the judgments in Ram Lal Narang [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] and M. Krishna [(1999) 3 SCC 247 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 397] in some detail, and while quashing the subsequent FIR held as under : (T.T. Antony case [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] , SCC pp. 198-99 & 204, paras 23-25 & 35)
“23. The right of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is a statutory right over which the court does not possess any supervisory jurisdiction under CrPC. In King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad [(1943-44) 71 IA 203] the Privy Council spelt out the power of the investigation of the police, as follows : (IA p. 212)
‘… In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, as Their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court.’
24. This plenary power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence is, however, not unlimited. It is subject to certain well-recognised limitations. One of them, is pointed out by the Privy Council, thus : (Khwaja Nazir case [(1943-44) 71 IA 203] , IA p. 213)
‘… if no cognizable offence is disclosed, and still more, if no offence of any kind is disclosed, the police would have no authority to undertake an investigation….’
25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
***
35. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 for making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173(8) CrPC before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A.Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside.”
25. The first information report is a very important document, besides that it sets the machinery of criminal law in motion. It is a very material document on which the entire case of the prosecution is built. Upon registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the Code. The possibility that more than one piece of information is given to the police officer-in-charge of a police station, in respect of the same incident involving one or more than one cognizable offences, cannot be ruled out. Other materials and information given to or received otherwise by the investigating officer would be statements covered under Section 162 of the Code. The court in order to examine the impact of one or more FIRs has to rationalise the facts and circumstances of each case and then apply the test of “sameness” to find out whether both FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence, are in regard to incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction or relate completely to two distinct occurrences. If the answer falls in the first category, the second FIR may be liable to be quashed. However, in case the contrary is proved, whether the version of the second FIR is different and they are in respect of two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible, this is the view expressed by this Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 336] . This judgment clearly spells out the distinction between two FIRs relating to the same incident and two FIRs relating to different incidents or occurrences of the same incident, etc…”
90. Perusal of the aforesaid shows that as per the settled position of law, in order to ascertain the impact of one or more FIRs, the peculiar nature of facts and circumstances are to be determined at the outset.
Pursuant to the same, the Court has to apply the test of ‘sameness’ to find out as to whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident and to the same occurrence and are in regard to the incidents which form part of the same transaction. In the event, the answer to the same is in affirmative, the other FIR is liable to be quashed.
91. With regard to the matter at hand, the information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA led to the registration of the impugned FIR. The said information can be categorized into various allegations made against the petitioner with respect to the i) commission of cognizable offences such as diversion and siphoning of funds, and duping investors, ii) illegally acquiring land and violating land ceiling laws, iii) issue of merger of companies, and iv) duping investors for which proceedings are pending before the RERA.
92. At this juncture, after perusing the aforesaid records including the FIR nos. 16/2018, 49/2021 and 55/2023 along with the orders dated 19th November, 2019, 22nd December, 2022 and 14th October, 2024 vide which the respected FIRs have been compounded/quashed; as well as the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the impugned FIR warrants interference of this Court and the same is liable to be quashed in light of the grounds/discussions made in the following paragraphs.
93. At the outset, it is noted that in the counter affidavit filed by the ED, it has contended and reiterated the validity of Section 66(2) of the PMLA, however, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has no where challenged the validity of the said provision rather it has contended that the ED has misused the provisions of law by sharing the information under the said provision as the same was done with the intent to keep the investigation against the petitioner alive by creating some predicate offence.
94. It is pertinent to mention that there is no doubt regarding the validity of Section 66(2) of the PMLA and the ED is well within its rights and statutory duties to share the information under the aforesaid provision in terms of paragraph nos. 282 and 290 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Mdanal Chaudhary (Supra) if it is of the opinion that cognizable offence has been committed. Further, in terms of the said judgment, the concerned jurisdictional police station is obligated to accept the information and proceed with the registration of FIR if an offence is made out. However, when the said information was received by the EOW, the EOW was required to apply its independent mind, verify and assess the contents of the letter dated 27th May, 2023 in order to proceed with the registration of the FIR as it would have found that the same set of allegations, which are purported to be cognizable offences, were made in the earlier FIRs and the said FIRs were compromised/settled.
95. This Court is inclined to concur with the petitioner’s contentions. A perusal of Section 66(2) of the PMLA reveals that the ED, while sharing the information, has to form an opinion on the basis of the information in its possession. Cursory reading of the said provision makes the same evidently clear. However, in the instant case, the ED has failed to form any such clear opinion and the same is apparent from the face of the record. The EOW has merely repeated allegations qua the commissions of cognizable offences that are already covered in the previous FIRs which were lodged against the petitioner, wherein, the same cognizable offences have been compromised/settled.
96. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent no. 2 rightly shared the information to the respondent no. 1, however, the same raises certain questions in the mind of this Court as the ED’s mechanical forwarding of the complaint to the EOW, without forming any independent opinion regarding the commission of cognizable offence is not in terms of the intent of the statutory mandate. Furthermore, the EOW as well has acted and registered the FIR in a mechanical manner and without application of mind.
97. Moving further to the aspect of the allegation of commission of the cognizable offences for which the information was shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, this Court is of the view that all investors’ claims cannot be amalgamated and clubbed in a single FIR. Merely citing that a large number of people have been victim in an alleged offence cannot be the procedure to investigate any offence pertaining to dispute in real estate sector. The same is based on the premise that the individual investors and the concerned real estate project builder are the private parties and all such individual investors might want to address their grievance separately and under different circumstances. Some of the individual investors might seek settlement and some might seek proper investigation.
98. Upon perusal of the entire material available on record, it is made out by this Court that the EOW’s allegation of commission of cognizable offence, i.e., diversion of funds by the petitioner to its group entities is not a new allegation as claimed, but has already been raised in the previous FIRs (16/2018, 49/2021 & 55/2023) which have either been compounded or quashed by the Court concerned.
99. At this stage, when the entire premise of the impugned FIR is similar to the ones made in the previously compromised/ settled/compounded/ quashed FIRs, the impugned FIR cannot survive as the same might lead to re-investigation or double jeopardy which is impermissible in the eyes of law.
100. Allegations made in the FIR regarding the cheating of government authorities and misappropriation of investors’ money are also devoid of any merit and do not constitute any cognizable offence as no proof with respect to the same has been filed or shown to substantiate the said allegations to any extent.
101. The EOW has recorded the baseless allegations (cognizable offence) in the impugned FIR without even conducting a basic examination of the previous FIRs filed against the petitioner and the said non-application of mind is apparent from the face of the record. A cursory perusal of the contents of the FIR nos. 16/2018, 49/2021 & 55/2023 clearly reveals that the specific allegations of diversion of funds were made by the complainants therein and the same were duly investigated by the concerned police station which ultimately led to their quashing/compounding. The record clearly reveals that the majority of the disputes of the individual investors stand settled/compromised. Therefore, the EOW’s action of registering the impugned FIR, without any prima facie evidence and verification is untenable in the eyes of law as the FIR does not disclose the commission of any new cognizable offence and the same lacks application of mind.
102. The EOW has failed to justify the registration of the FIR with regard to the pendency of cases before the RERA against the petitioner company. It is a settled position of law that the pendency of civil proceedings cannot be used as a ground to initiate criminal action or register a new FIR. It is an admitted fact that the proceedings pending before the RERA are purely civil in nature, arising out of the contractual relationship between the petitioner company and its individual investors/ buyers/complainants therein, therefore, if the RERA finds any irregularity or criminality in the conduct of the petitioner or its group entities, the EOW shall always be at liberty to initiate proceedings.
103. The proceedings before the RERA serve the purpose to address the grievances of the complainants therein in terms of their money and project in which they have invested whereas the police, being an investigating agency will be required to look in the criminality of the offence, if any.
104. The EOW’s attempt to conflate civil and criminal proceedings is not only legally untenable but also hints towards a mala fide intention to harass and prejudice the petitioner company. Therefore, the pendency of the disputes before the RERA may not form the basis of registration of the FIR that too in the event when out of the total 966 complaints made against the petitioner before the RERA, 887 have been disposed of with the directions of refund, mutual settlement, default, possession etc, and the majority of investors have already settled or entered into compromise.
105. Further, in the FIR, it has been stated that the petitioner company violated various land ceiling laws by merging forty various companies into a single one. With regard to the same, it is observed by this Court that vide order dated 5th May, 2014, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Co. Pet. No. 47/2014, the Court concerned had approved the merger of forty companies with the petitioner company. In paragraph nos. 11 to 17 of the said order, it can be noted that a notice was duly issued to the Regional Director, Northern Region, who had filed an affidavit categorically stating that post-merger, the land area with the petitioner company would fall within the ceiling limits as approved by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The said order has not been challenged as per the record available before this Court and thus, the said dispute stands decided and adjudicated which, at this stage, may not be the subject matter of any criminal offence, unless substantiated with some material proof. Therefore, no such offence is made out prima facie.
106. Furthermore, the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, in Section 36, deals with the offences by the companies and cooperative society, therefore, if any offence is made out, the competent authority to take actions against the violations of the said act would be the authority prescribed under the said Act and EOW has no role to play thereto. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would also reveal that the same is based on the same set of stale allegations and the said new allegations, as claimed by the respondents, regarding the land acquisition and merger of companies are nothing but a blatant attempt to bring the petitioner within the ambit of criminal law. Moreover, the said Act does not find any mention in the list of scheduled offences under the PMLA, therefore, any action taken for the supposed violation of the said Act would be of no assistance in saving EOW’s consequential proceedings.
107. This Court is of the considered view that the sole motive behind the registration of the impugned FIR was to keep the investigation against the petitioner company alive despite the absence of any fresh or credible information. The EOW’s erroneous registration of the FIR despite any substantial evidence clearly shows the non-application of mind as evidently, the contents of the FIR are mere reiteration of the letter dated 27th May, 2023 (issued under Section 66(2) of the PMLA) and the same is a blatant abuse of the legal process.
108. It is observed by this Court that the impugned FIR was registered with the sole purpose of maintaining the ED’s investigative jurisdiction and the same is apparent from the list of dates and events, the chronology of the dispute pertaining to the petitioner company and the bare perusal of the earlier FIRs as well as the impugned FIR.
109. The respondents have contended that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are new. However, this Court does not agree with the respondents. The impugned FIR stems from the letter dated 27th May, 2023 which encapsulate the alleged commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner with respect to diversion of funds by the petitioner, pending cases before the RERA, violation of land ceiling laws, allegations made by the complainant in FIR nos. 16/2018 and 49/2021 and allegations made by one Mrs. Shobhna Gupta in FIR no. 55/2023.
110. The allegations contained in the previous FIRs which have also formed the basis of the registration of the instant FIR were investigated by the concerned police station until the time the same were quashed/compounded. Therefore, the EOW’s assertions that the allegations of diversion of funds constitute new information not covered in the previous FIRs are baseless and misconceived. Further, it is pertinent to note that even the FIR no. 55/2023, registered on the basis of the complaint made by Mrs. Shobhna Gupta has also been quashed vide order dated 14th October, 2024, passed by this Court in CRL. MC.420/2024. Therefore, the allegations in the impugned FIR qua the complaint of Mrs. Shobhna Gupta are of no relevance and hence, no offence is made out as such.
111. It is a well-settled position of law that registration of a new FIR on the basis of the same allegations is impermissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has categorically held that subjecting an accused to fresh investigation on the basis of the same allegations is an abuse of the legal process and violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. By attempting to resurrect the same old allegations in the garb of a new FIR, the respondents are not only acting in contravention of the settled legal position but also subjecting the petitioner company to undue harassment and prejudice.
112. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents have acted in a manner that is contrary to all the canons of legal jurisprudence and in complete disregard of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
113. In view of the preceding paragraphs, it is observed that in the instant FIR, it has been alleged that the petitioner and its group entities have duped the investors/buyers. Further, the ED has particularly shared with the EOW that vide letter dated 16th March, 2023, the RERA informed that total of 966 complaints were received against the petitioner, out of which 887 have been disposed of with the directions of refund, mutual settlement, default, possession etc. and over 79 complaints are still pending for adjudication by the RERA, and the same has not been taken into consideration while lodging the impugned FIR. Moreover, the earlier FIRs which included similar allegations of commission of cognizable offence, as mentioned in the instant FIR, already stand quashed/compounded/compromised/settled, thus, no new cognizable offence is made out in the impugned FIR.
114. Therefore, despite the admitted position of fact that the earlier FIRs already stand quashed/compounded vide order dated 19th November, 2019, 22nd December, 2022 and 14th October, 2024 as well as the fact that the dispute of the majority of the investors is compromised/settled; the act of the respondent no. 1 EOW by registering the FIR again on the same set of stale allegations creates serious doubts.
115. Further, the respondent no. 1 EOW should not have registered the FIR on the basis of assumptions and presumptions as in the instant case the same would lead to re-investigation against the petitioner on the basis of assertions/claims/allegations which have been already compromised/settled. This, along with the fact that there is a delay on the part of the EOW in registering the FIR with respect to the information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA reeks of mala fide on the part of the EOW as the letter was issued by the ED on 27th May, 2023 and the impugned FIR was registered on 6th March, 2024. Nowhere has the respondent no. 1 EOW justified the gross delay in registration of the FIR. Neither has the EOW contended that it was collecting evidence or doing investigation that led to the delay in registration of the FIR, nor has the EOW brought on record any incriminating evidence against the petitioner.
116. Here, it is also pertinent to mention Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India which prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The said principle enshrined under Article 20 prevents individuals from being subjected to multiple trials or punishments for the same offence. The said principle also finds mention in Section 337 BNSS (earlier Section 301 of the CrPC).
117. There is no doubt that unduly long delay has the effect of bringing about blatant violation of the rule of law and adverse impact on the common man’s access to justice. A person’s access to justice is a guaranteed fundamental right under the Constitution and particularly Articles 20 and 21 with regard to the instant case. Therefore, keeping a matter pending for investigation and further trial, that too when the allegations leveled are completely baseless as:
I. the same set of allegations containing commission of cognizable offences, when made by the private individual investors earlier, have been quashed/compounded;
II. the other set of allegations pertain to civil disputes, for which, proceedings are pending before the RERA;
III. out of the total 966 complaints against the petitioner made before the RERA, 887 have been disposed of with the directions of refund, mutual settlement, default, possession etc.;
IV. the EOW has proceeded to register the FIR on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, without applying its mind and conducting an independent assessment;
V. the registration of the FIR by the EOW seems to be a tactic to keep the investigation against the petitioner alive; and
VI. the EOW shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner if any incriminating evidence is found during the proceedings pending before the RERA or any other authority.
118. The impugned FIR is a classic example of abuse of process of law wherein the prosecution, in a blatant attempt, to include the petitioner in commission of an offence has grossly avoided the application of mind by not verifying the contents which would have shown that the said contents are mere reiteration of the earlier FIRs; and the same is evident from the bare perusal of the contents of the FIR and the letter dated 27th May, 2023 (sent by the ED). A perusal of the same shows that the respondent no. 1 has merely copied the contents of the said letter and has registered the FIR.
119. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the compelling circumstances such as the quashing of earlier FIRs which contained same set of allegations qua commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner which were ultimately compromised/settled, this Court is of the considered view that while applying the test of ‘sameness’, as discussed hereinabove, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as the respondents cannot be allowed to re-investigate the already compromised/settled disputes by way of registering a fresh FIR on the same set of allegations.
120. Thus, this Court finds merit in the instant petition and is of the view that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.
CONCLUSION
121. This Court is of the view that the impugned FIR in the instant case is an abuse of the process of law. It is found that non-interference in the present matter would result into miscarriage of justice and thus, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS (earlier Section 482 of the CrPC) read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned FIR.
122. In view of the above discussion on all the facts and circumstances as well as law, the of FIR no. 13/2024, dated 6th March, 2024, registered at Police Station - Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the consequential proceedings emerging from the said FIR stands quashed.
123. However, it is made clear that in the event the other authorities such as RERA, where proceedings are pending against the petitioner and its group entities, arrives at the conclusion that any irregularities or offence punishable under the penal law or any other law in existence has been committed by the petitioner or any of its group entities/individuals, the respondent no. 1 EOW is at liberty to initiate afresh proceedings against the petitioner or any of its group entities/individuals in accordance with the law at the instance of the complaint made by any individual investor or the ED.
124. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
125. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.
126. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
