Delhi District Court
M/S Euro Apex B.V vs The State on 8 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR: ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) (CBI) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET DISTRICT COURTS
NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision Number: 09/2015
Unique ID No. 02406R0063672015
M/s Euro Apex B.V.,
Westeinide 26A, 2275 AE,
Voorburg, Netherlands. ...........................Revisionist
versus
1 The State
2 Sh. Shyam Manohar Maheshwari,
R/o 44, Navjeevan Vihar,
New Delhi-110017.
3 Sh. Sharad Maheshwar,
R/o 44, Navjeevan Vihar,
New Delhi-110017.
4 Sh. Nil Moni Sinha,
R/o B-9/6209, Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi-110070.
5 Sh. Rajesh Maheshwari,
R/o 44, Navjeevan Vihar,
New Delhi-110017. ................................Respondents
Date of institution of Revision : 25.02.2015
Date of Allocation : 26.02.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 06.10.2015
Date of Judgment : 08.10.2015
M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 1 of 7
Particulars related to impugned order
CC No. : 24/1/13
PS : Malviya Nagar
Date of impugned order : 09.12.2014
Name of learned Trial Court : Ms. Chetna Singh,
MM-02, South, Saket.
Memo of Appearance
Sh. Vishal Gera, counsel for Revisionist.
Sh. Praveen Rahul, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1.
Sh. L.K. Singh, counsel for Respondent No.2, 3 and 5.
JUDGMENT
1 The present is a judicial verdict on the revision petition, filed u/s 397 read with section 399 of Cr.P.C., against the impugned order dated 09.12.2014, passed by the learned trial court.
2 Brief facts of the case are that, in the year 1999, one "Bachmann Industries India Ltd." being represented by respondent No. 2 & 4, approached the representatives of the revisionist to obtain certain marketing and technical information for the purpose of evaluating the potential usefulness of the subject technology of the revisionist company in its marketing and manufacturing information. It is alleged that upon inducement and misrepresentation of respondent No. 2 and 4, the revisionist entered into a non-disclosure agreement with Bachmann Industries India Ltd.
3 It is alleged that through Bachmann Industries Ltd., with fraudulent intentions, the respondents No. 2 & 4, approached the revisionist M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 2 of 7 having world wide presence in the heat exchanging units, with a premeditated plan to fraudulently take and obtain certain marketing and technical information. It is further alleged that in furtherance of the aforesaid agreement, joint venture agreement, dated 15.05.2000, the understanding between the revisionist and respondent No. 2 to 5 was brought on papers and revisionist, inter alia, was given 50:50 ownership and control of Bharat Apex and later also agreed to share its technical know how with Bharat Apex. It is alleged that as per terms of the joint venture agreement, inter alia, the percentage of the shareholding of both the parties i.e., Indian Promoters and the revisionist should always have been retained as 50:50. The respondent No. 2 to 5, by creating forge documents and in a deceitful manner diluted the agreed ownership of the revisionist from 50:50 to only 24%, approximately. It is alleged that the respondent No. 2 to 5 have violated the provisions of the Companies Act.
4 A complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. had been filed by the complainant alleging offences u/s 405/406/420/463/464/468/471/120-B IPC before the learned trial court which has been dismissed vide impugned order, dated 09.12.2014. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.
5 I have heard arguments and have carefully gone through the material available on the record file.
6 It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that learned trial court had not applied its mind and failed to appreciate the facts of the case. It has been contended that the averments made in the complaint is supported by statement of the authorized representative of the complainant which the learned trial court has failed to appreciate. It has been contended that learned trial court was not justified in refusing to proceed against the M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 3 of 7 respondent no. 2 to 5. It has further been contended that learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the respondents no. 2 to 5 clearly violated the terms of the joint venture agreement wherein it was clearly stipulated that shareholding of the revisionist and that of the respondent would be maintained at 50:50 and respondents no. 2 to 5, in pursuance of the conspiracy amongst themselves, forged the documents pertaining to the company and thereby caused wrongful loss to the revisionist company by diluting its shareholding and caused wrongful gain to themselves by increasing their stake in shareholding of Bharat Apex. The revisionist has prayed for setting aside the impugned order, dated 09.12.2014.
7 On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order, dated 09.12.2014, has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court. It has further been contended that learned Trial Court has not committed any error by dismissing the complaint. It has been argued that the present revision petition be dismissed.
8 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the material available on record file. I have also gone through the evidence of CW1 recorded on 28.07.2014. The relevant part of evidence of CW1 is reproduced below for ready reference.
"Accordingly a joint venture agreement were signed amongst the parties on 15.05.2000. The copy of the joint venture agreement dated 15.05.2000 is exhibited as mark 'A'. However, the company pursuant to the aforesaid understanding was already incorporated by the Indian party on 01.03.2000 which was at that point of time not in knowledge of the complainant.M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 4 of 7
Further, the accused persons further induced the complainant to enter into a formal understanding in the nature of licensing agreement pursuant to which the complainant company was supposed to share the technical knowhow with the joint venture company Bharat Apex Industries Ltd which was signed on 03.07.2000. The copy of the memorandum of association and articles of association are collectively exhibited as mark 'B'(colly). The copy of the licensing agreement is exhibited as mark 'C'. In furtherance to the understanding and agreements stated above the joint venture company Bharat Apex started its business in a model where the complainant was responsible for the major part being marketing procurement etc. including completion of the order received from the customers. But during the course of business the complainant company being a brand name in the business of heat exchanging units started receiving complains directly from its customer against the Indian party. Till that point of time the complainant was not directly involved into the affairs of the joint venture company. But was solely responsible for the business development, opportunities, completion of order and other related task."
9 It is apparent from the evidence of CW1 that a joint venture agreement, dated 15.05.2000 was entered into between the parties. Said agreement was got exhibited as mark 'A' before the learned trial court. Thus, it is clear that the present complaint has been filed on the basis of joint M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 5 of 7 venture agreement, dated 15.05.2000. The dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that there is nothing on the record file to attract provisions of section 405/406/420/463/ 464/468/471/120-B IPC.
10 The complainant has examined himself on oath stating/reiterating the contents of the complaint, being AR of the complainant company vide resolution. The accused persons have been alleged to have committed the offences as mentioned above on the basis of the complaint Ex. CW-1/B. However, prima facie, requirement of dishonest inducement for cheating as well as cogent documentary information required for the purposes of forgery has not been placed on record. Contents of the complaint do not reveal any false promise. Revisionist has failed to show that any wrongful gain was caused to the alleged persons or that the alleged respondents misappropriated funds from the company. There are allegations, of non- service of notice, which do not tantamount to cheating, fraud or misappropriation. Since, the transactions between the parties was of civil nature and ingredients of sections 405/406/420/463/464/468/471/120-B IPC are not made out in the present matter, the learned trial court was fully justified in dismissing the present complaint. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned trial court. Hence, revision petition is hereby dismissed. The revisionist is at liberty to take appropriate civil action against the respondent as per law.
11 In view of the above discussion, revision petition stands disposed of.
M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 6 of 712 A copy of this judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court along with the trial court record.
13 File related to revision petition be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court (RAMESH KUMAR)
on this 8th day of October 2015 ASJ/Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)
South Distt: Saket Courts: New Delhi
M/s Euro Apex B.V. Vs State & Ors CR No. 09/2015 Page 7 of 7