Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Sunil Kumar & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 6 May, 2022
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2043/2022
SH. SUNIL KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit K. Naagpal, Mr. Vipin
Pillai, Mr. Dipanshu Gaba and Ms.
Aakanshah Bhardwaj, Advocates
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State.
Mr. Abhimanyu Kampani and
Mr. Mohit Joshi, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
% 06.05.2022 CRL.M.A. 8674/2022 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 2043/2022 & CRL.M.A.8675/2022 (Stay)
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashing of FIR No. 160/2022 registered under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter "IPC") at Police Station Palam Village.
2. Respondent no.2 and one Ravi Kumar, borrowed a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/- from M/s Manapurram Finance Ltd., where the petitioners have been working, for purchasing the commercial Vehicle Ashok Leyland Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI CRL.M.C. 2043/2022 Page 1 of 4 YADAV Signing Date:11.05.2022 17:49:02 ALPSV 4/51 VIKING 2015 Model having Registration No. DL1PD3347, vide Loan Account No MFHREXLONS000005040004. The borrowers were to repay the loan amount in 47 Equated Monthly Installments of Rs. 81,700/-. Subsequently, a Hypothecation Agreement has been executed between the borrowers and the Company where the petitioners are employed.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.2 thereafter, defaulted in the payment towards the loan amount and was given a moratorium period of 2 months during the pandemic in April-May 2020, in pursuance of which the Company issued a Loan Recall Notice on 22nd August, 2020. On the request of respondent no. 2, the Company restructured the loan and the EMI were increased from 47 to 65, however, the respondent no. 2 still defaulted in repayment. The Company initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were allowed by learned ADJ-02, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 13th April, 2021. The Company approached the police for execution of the order dated 13th April, 2021, since, the respondent no.2 had flouted the same and even the vehicle is untraceable. In September, 2021 respondent no.2 approached the Company with a compromise proposal and paid a sum of Rs. 12.25 Lakhs to the Company towards it outstanding amount.
4. It is the case of the respondent no. 2 that the proposal was initiated by the Company and in the garb of a compromise proposal between him and the Company, the petitioners/accused had cheated him. Thereafter, on the same grounds a police complaint was filed by the respondent no. 2 which resulted in the registration of the aforesaid FIR No. 160/2022 under Section 420/34 of the IPC. The petitioners are seeking quashing of the FIR before this Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI CRL.M.C. 2043/2022 Page 2 of 4 YADAV Signing Date:11.05.2022 17:49:02 Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature. There was no compromise proposal between the borrower/respondent no.2 and the Company. The amount of Rs. 12.25 Lakhs has been paid by the respondent no. 2 towards the outstanding amount which was adjusted in the loan account. An amount of Rs.14,36,250/- is yet to be repaid by the respondent no.2 towards the loan to the Company. Moreover, the vehicle in question is also untraceable and is nowhere to be found.
6. It is submitted that the petitioners are mere employees of the Company and have no role or power to settle the loan account of the respondent no. 2. Upon filing of the complaint by the respondent no. 2, the petitioners approached the concerned Police Station Palam Village, and filed the documents and apprised the Investigating Officer of the facts, however, the Investigating Officer told the petitioners the only option they had is to issue an NOC of the loan amount in favour of the respondent no. 2. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has been putting unnecessary pressure upon the petitioners to his demand of issuance of an NOC of the loan account.
7. It is submitted that in view of the above the FIR No. 160/2022 is liable to be quashed.
8. Per Contra, the respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that the instant petition has been filed in abuse of process of law. It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 had entered into a One Time Settlement with the petitioners and made a payment of Rs.12,25,000/- to the Company for settlement of loan account, however, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI CRL.M.C. 2043/2022 Page 3 of 4 YADAV Signing Date:11.05.2022 17:49:02 same was not honoured by them.
9. It is further submitted that the criminal case is at its initial stages, given that the investigation has already started, and the petitioners have the remedy of the appearing before the Trial Court and making all such submissions before it and proceed in accordance with the procedure of law. For the reasons stated above, it is submitted that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed since there are no substantial grounds for moving this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. The questions before this Court in the instant matter are pure questions of facts. It has been informed that the investigation has begun in the complaint and FIR and this investigation is in its nascent stage. The petitioners have the option of appearing before the Court below and raise all the contentions and arguments made herein before it.
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, it is the considered opinion of this Court that it is a premature stage to interfere in the investigation and the criminal proceedings. This Court does not find any cogent reason for invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction in the instant matter.
13. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
14. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J MAY 6, 2022 Aj/Ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI CRL.M.C. 2043/2022 Page 4 of 4 YADAV Signing Date:11.05.2022 17:49:02