Delhi District Court
State vs Clouser Report on 24 May, 2025
Cr Cases 41/2022
State Vs. Closure Report
FIR No. 66/2020
PS EOW
24.05.2025
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Vaibhav Dubey, Ld. Counsel for the applicant.
Sh. Amitesh Singh Mishra, Ms. Eccha Shukla and Sh. Gaurav
Mudgil, Ld. Counsels for accused.
1.Complainant moved an application in the form of protest petition for further investigation in the present case.
2. It is stated that applicant is the Complainant victim(s), which has been cheated by the accused persons. The Applicant/ Complainant has filed a detailed complaint dated 18.03.2020 through its authorised representative Mr. Vijay Kumar, who was then working as General Manager (Geology) in Directorate General of Hydrocarbons, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Govt. of India, having its office at OIDB Bhawan, Tower- A, Plot No. 2, Sector 73, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301. He submitted the complaint in the issue dated 18.03.2020 on behalf of the Complainant/ Applicant before the D.C.P. EOW.
3. It is stated that the preliminary enquiry on the complaint dated 18.03.2020 an FIR No. 66 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020 was registered and was forwarded to the Investigating Officer for further investigation.
Page No.1/204. It is stated that the Investigating Officer submitted Closure Report dated 15.12.2021 in FIR No. 66 of 2020 before this Hon'ble Court. It is stated that the Investigating Officer despite admitting that the offence was committed, however, miserably failed to charge a single person with the commission of the said offence and submitted a Closure Report as if the offence was not at all committed.
5. It is stated that the instant Protest Petition is being filed on behalf of the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (hereinafter referred to as "DGH" or "Complainant/Applicant"), Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas (hereinafter referred to as "MoPNG") seeking further investigation in the instant case and proper monitoring of the further investigation carried out by the Economic Offences Wing in the interest of justice.
6. It is stated that the MoPNG, Government of India launched the Discovered Small Field Policy (hereinafter referred to as "DSF") with the purpose of extracting the Oil, Natural Gas from the un-monetized small oil/ gas discoveries that are in the country. That the DGH looks after the DSF policy implementation.
7. It is stated that the MoPNG launched DSF Bid Round-II on 09.08.2018 and issued Notice Inviting Offers (hereinafter referred to as "NIO") for the Development of Discovered Small Oil & Gas Fields in India, under the Discovered Small Field Policy for 25 contract areas. As per the NIO, the Discovered Small Fields were to be awarded to successful bidders by entering into a Revenue Sharing Contract (hereinafter referred to as "RSC") with the Government. One of the important terms of the NIO, as Page No.2/20 given under Clause IX (5) is as under:
"IX. Other Terms and Conditions (5) Bank Guarantee for Work Programme Commitment One-time Bank Guarantee (BG) valid for the Development period for the Biddable Work Programme subject to a minimum bank guarantee for an equivalent amount of USD 0.15 Million and USD 0.23 Million for Contract Area in on-
land and shallow water respectively is to be submitted by the successful bidder after signing of the Contract as per Article 27 of the MPSC That as per the abovesaid terms the Contractor is obligated to provide a Performance Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Twenty Lakhs Only) within 30 days from the effective date Le.. 08.01.2020 (the date of grant of Petroleum Miling Lease (hereinafter referred to as "PML") to the Contractor) in the instant matter.
8. It is stated that the Empowered Committee of Secretaries (hereinafter referred to as "ECS") and Group of Ministers of the Government of India on 01.03.2019 approved the award of 23 contract areas to Highest Ranked Bidders as part of the DSF Bid Round-II. As per the said approval, the Contract Area: AA/ONDSF/Madhakali/2018 was awarded to M/s Arsh Corporate Services Private Limited which provided its office address at 501, Imperial Residency, Mahadev Society, Gulmohur X Road No. 12, Vile Parle Page No.3/20 (West), Mumbai- 400019. Admittedly at the time of submission of the bid and furnishing of the Bank Guarantee the company was under the control of its Directors namely, Mr. Hotu Gordhandas Makhijani and Ms. Nisha Hotu Makhjani who were in-charge of the day to day affairs of the company.
9. It is stated that post approval of the Contracts the MoPNG, for the President of India, though its Joint Secretary executed a RSC dated 07.03.2019 at New Delhi with the M/s Arsh Corporate Services Private Limited.
10. It is stated that as per the delegation of powers, DGH is the managing and monitoring body of all petroleum operations contracts awarded by the Ministry, including the performance of the contracts pertaining to Discovered Small Fields. Accordingly, M/s Arsh Corporate Services Private Limited submitted all the required documents and compliances to the DGH for verification and managing the contract.
11. It is stated that subsequently, M/s Arsh Corporate Services Private Limited ie. the Contractor vide its letter dated 22.10.2019, communicated to MoPNG regarding the change in address and change in name of the company from M/s Arsh Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Duganta Oil and Natural Gas Pvt. Ltd. The address was changed to 301. Durga Chambers, A-8, Veera Industrial Estate, Behind Balaji Telefilms, Andheri (West) Mumbai, Maharashtra 400053.
12. It is stated that as per the terms of the NIO and other Contractual obligations, the Contractor vide its letter dated 17.02.2020, under the Page No.4/20 signature of Ms. Nikita Busa (Authorised Signatory), submitted to the DGH. a Bank Guarantee no. 16221BG0923028 dated 12.02.2020 in favour of the Government of India purportedly issued by Allahabad Bank, Dadar (West), Mumbai branch, for an amount of Rs. 7,20,00,000/-(Rupees Seven Crores Twenty Lakhs Only).
13. It is stated that the above-mentioned Bank Guarantee was submitted along-with a covering letter from the abovesaid branch of the Bank dated 14.02.2020 addressed to the Nodal Officer in DGH, Noida; a Notarised Form of Company Financial and Performance Guarantee dated 17.02.2020; and a Legal Opinion from the Company's Advocate M/s Jondhale & Co., Advocates, 701, Lily, Dosti Acres, Wadala (E). Mumbai-37 certifying the authenticity & legality of the said bank guarantee.
14. It is stated that as per the standard practice, DGH vide its letter dated 20.02.2020 forwarded the copy of the Bank Guarantee to the Manager, Allahabad Bank, Dadar West (Bank Guarantee issuing branch) and requested the Branch to verify the genuineness of the above mentioned Bank Guarantee, in response whereof, Mr. Kumar Anand Mohan, Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank, Dadar (West) Branch vide its letter dated 04.03.2020 has informed that the concerned branch has not issued any such Bank Guarantee which was submitted by the Contractor with DGH.
15. It is stated that a letter dated 28.02.2020 was also received by DGH from Allahabad confirming the genuineness of the said Bank abad Bank, Dadar Branch Guarantee. Sensing serious bank forgery and cheating the DGH through its letter dated 12.03.2020 requested the Assistant General Page No.5/20 Manager, Zonal Office, Allahabad bank, Worli Mumbai to have the entire matter inquired and confirm the genuineness of the Bank guarantee dated 12.02.2020. The Zonal Office, Allahabad Bank. Worli, Mumbai through a letter dated 13.03.2020, informed that the bank has not issued any such Bank Guarantee and therefore they cannot confirm the identity of the abovesaid Bank Guarantees as sought for by DGH. Further, the Bank also informed that M/s Duganta Oil & Natural gas (P) Ltd is not Bank's client.
16. It is stated that a forged and fabricated Bank Guarantee, and legal opinion in support of the same have been submitted by the above-named Contractor which was under the control of its Directors and key managerial personnel in the purported discharge of its obligations under the RSC/ relevant NIO fraudulently & dishonestly with an intention to deceive the MoPNG and DGH towards the performance of the Contract for the contract area: AA/ONDSF/Madhakali/2018.
17. It is stated that the Applicant/Complainant believes that the above- named Company, its Directors, key managerial personnel and others were involved in the commission of the offence qua submission of the forged Bank Guarantee in order to attain the RSC. However, the IO did not find anyone involved in the offence and submitted his Closure Report dated 15.12.2021, despite there being documentary proof qua the commission of the offence. It is pertinent to mention here that it was the Contractor and its key Personnel who would have been the direct beneficiaries of the alleged transaction(s). Therefore, filing of the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021 under such circumstances by the Investigating Officer demonstrates dereliction in duty and hence, the instant matter warrants intervention of this Page No.6/20 Court.
18. It is stated that the Applicant/ Complainant has perused the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021 by conducting an inspection of the entire court file qua the instant matter as filed before this Court and the Applicant/ Complainant most humbly crave leave of this Court to bring on record the various ambiguities and inadequacies in the investigation conducted and the consequent errors and flaws which have crept into the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021.
19. It is stated that it is imperative to mention here that the Applicant/ Complainant had filed a complaint against M/s Duganta Oil and Natural Gas Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile known as M/s Arsh Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd.) and its Directors, key managerial personnel and others on 18.03.2020 before the D.C.P., EOW, New Delhi, which was later on converted into FIR No. 66 of 2020. It is also noteworthy to mention here that as claimed by Mr. Punit Aggarwal from M/s Duganta Oil and Natural Gas Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile known as M/s Arsh Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd.) a complaint dated 13.03.2020 was also filed before Shivaji Park Police Station, Dadar, West, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400028 against Mr. Nilesh Mhatre and others for forging the Bank Guarantee which was submitted before the Complainant/ Applicant w.r.t. RSC on 19.02.2020 which was later on converted in FIR No. 19 of 2020.
20. It is stated that despite the registration of FIR No. 66 of 2020 by the EOW Delhi, no statement or interrogation of the directors (viz., Mr. Hotu Gordhandas Makhijani and Ms. Nisha Hotu Makhijani) of M/s Duganta Oil Page No.7/20 and Natural Gas Pvt. Ltd. (erstwhile known as M/s Arsh Corporate Service Pvt. Ltd.), has been recorded by the Investigating Officer.
21. It is stated that the Investigating Officer also failed to record the statements of the three arrested persons in FIR No. 19 of 2020 viz., a) Mr. Abdul Farooqui, b) Mr. Mandar Tendulkar c) Mr. Nilesh Mhatre who were also allegedly involved in the preparation of the forged Bank Guarantee.
22. It is stated that the Investigating Officer also failed to record the statement of (a) Mr. Suraj Chouhan from Delhi who had an account in Allahabad Bank, Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi in the name of "Buying Overseas", (b) Mr. A.K. Basu (Mr. A.K. Bose) from Kolkata and (c) Mr. Sidharth Sharma from Delhi who were also allegedly involved in the Preparation of the forged Bank Guarantee in the instant case. It is pertinent to mention here that, these names were disclosed by Mr. Nilesh Mhatre while confessing the forgery before Mr. Punit Aggarwal, who is himself an accused in the FIR No. 66 of 2020 lodged by the Complainant/Applicant, and the said confession is specifically mentioned in the representation dated 08.06.2020 of Mr. Punit Aggarwal submitted before Investigating Officer in the instant matter.
23. It is stated that there are glaring inadequacies in the investigation which have been detailed hereinafter. That despite having enough material on record along with the complaint the Investigating Officer has not charge- sheeted any person(s) for the commission of the offence, which appears to be quite startling. It is stated that it appears from the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021 itself that the Investigating Officer has not taken any pain/ effort Page No.8/20 to carry out an independent investigation in the matter. He has barely examined the main persons who are responsible for the day-to-day business of the company/ contractor and who is involved in the commission of the crime.
24. It is stated that following errors are glaring on the face of the records of the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021:
i. It is stated that from the bare perusal of the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021 it is apparent that not even a single person has been charge-
sheeted in relation to FIR No. 66 of 2020 as if the offence was never committed. There are glaring irregularities in the investigation like the statement of person(s) who were arrested viz., a) Mr. Abdul Farooqt b) Mr. Mandar Tendulkar and c) Mr. Nilesh Mhatre (by the EOW investigation in FIR bearing no. 19 of 2020) Mumbai during were not taken/ recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the instant FIR 66 of 2020 dated 04.07.2020.
ii. It is stated that the Investigating Officer miserably failed to arrest or interrogate Mr. Suraj Chouhan, Mr. A.K. Basu and Mr. Siddharth who were allegedly involved in the preparation of the forged Bank Guarantee as confessed by Mr. Nilesh Mhatre before Mr. Punit Aggarwal on 13.03.2020. iii It is stated that the statements of the above-named person(s) were relevant to know the other side of the story and to know who is the mastermind behind the commission of the offence.
iv. It is stated that Mr. Punit Aggarwal vide its email dated 13.03.2020 cleverly sought some time for the change of the Bank before Guarantee submitted Complainant/ Applicant (by mentioning the Bank Guarantee as mentioned that they are trying to verify the "original") and discreetly Page No.9/20 genuineness of the bank guarantee in issue as the information w.r.t. genuinity was not received, hence, they are susceptible qua genuineness of the Bank Guarantee, despite filing a complaint dated 13.03.2020 against Mr. Nilesh Mhatre and others qua the genuineness of the Bank Guarantee before the Shivaji Park Police Station, Dadar, West, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400028. v. It is stated that as per Mr. Punit Aggarwal's representation dated 08.06.2020 before the Investigating Officer, Mr. Manish Ghadi an employee of Mr. Punit Aggarwal visited the concerned branch of the Allahabad Bank on 12.03.2020 to verify the genuinity of the Bank Guarantee in issue wherein, Mr. Manish Ghadi came to know about the fact that the concerned Bank officer who had allegedly issued the Bank Guarantee in issue was not working at the concerned branch of the Allahabad Bank. Mr. Manish Ghadi conveyed this information to Mr. Punit Aggarwal, however, Mr. Punit Aggarwal choose not to share this vital information with the Complainant/ Applicant. It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Punit Agarwal even concealed this information during his interrogation dated 26.03.2021 before the Investigating Officer.
vi. It is stated that as per Mr. Punit Aggarwal's representation dated 08.06.2020, it is specifically mentioned that on 13.03.2020. Mr. Nilesh Mhatre confessed regarding forging of Bank Guarantee in issue and also provided names of person(s) who are allegedly involved in preparing the same, viz. Mr. Suraj Chouhan from Delhi who had an account in Allahabad Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi in the name of "Buying Overseas", Mr. A. K. Basu (Mr. A. K. Bose) from Kolkata and Mr. Sidharth Sharma from Delhi. However, Mr. Punit Aggarwal concealed this vital piece of information from the Complainant/ Applicant that the Bank Guarantee submitted to the Complainant/Applicant is a forged one.
Page No.10/20vii. As per Clause IX (5) of NIO and Article 27 of the RSC dated 07.03.2019 the Performance Bank Guarantee needs to be submitted within a prescribed period of 30 days from the effective date of RSC, ie, 08.01.2020 however, M/s Duganta Oil and Natural Gas Private Ltd (erstwhile known as M/s Arsh Corporate Services Private Limited) miserably failed to provide the same on time despite the demand from the Complainant/ Applicant, and hence, there is a likelihood that in order to retain the RSC, Mr. Punit Aggarwal hatched a plan with Mr. Nilesh Mhatre and Others to submit the forged Bank Guarantee to the Complainant/Applicant just to save the RSC and accordingly, Mr. Punit Aggarwal and Mr. Nilesh Mhatre as a co- conspirator duly executed the plan qua preparation of the fabricated/ forged Bank Guarantee which is evident from the fact that Mr. Punit Aggarwal duly concealed material information from the Complainant/ Applicant as there is a likelihood that on disclosing the same the RSC may have been terminated by the Complainant/ Applicant. It is stated that Mr. Punit Agarwal discreetly mentioned the original Bank Guarantee and not the fabricated bank guarantee vide its mail dated 13.03.2020 despite knowing that the Bank Guarantee submitted with the Complainant is a forged one. viii. It is stated that this is considered as suppression of material information such as filing of the complaint before the Mumbai Police Station and genuinity of Bank Guarantee in issue establish the malafide intent of Mr. Punit Agarwal to deceit the Complainant/ Applicant qua the genuinity of Bank Guarantee as the time for submission of the Performance Bank Guarantee as per RSC has already been elapsed on 08.02.2020. ix. It is stated that it was mentioned on page no. 17 of the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021, which read as:
"On 13.03.2020, Punit Agarwal met Nilesh Mhatre and came to know about Page No.11/20 the fraud played upon him. On 16.03.2020, Punit Aggarwal with an official of DGH at Delhi and explained the whole situation as how Nilesh Mhatre cheated him."
x. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has failed to identify and name of the officials of Complainant/ Applicant with whom Mr. Punit Aggarwal met on 16.03.2020. It is stated that Mr. Punit Aggarwal did meet the officers of the Complainant/ Applicant, viz., Ms. Tinku Nischal, Dr. C. Laxma Reddy, and Mr. R. Sinha, at their DGH Office, wherein it was only conveyed to Mr. Punit Aggarwal that necessary steps will be taken up by the Complainant/Applicant in accordance with RSC. It is stated that by that time the Complainant/ Applicant had already received a confirmation qua the fact that the Bank Guarantee is forged from the Allahabad Bank. xi. It is stated that the Investigating Officer took a careless approach while not enquiring about this aspect from Mr. Punit Aggarwal qua suppressing this vital material information wrt the filing of the complaint dated 13.03.2020 before the Shivaji Park Police Station, Dadar, West, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400028 with the Complainant.
xii. It is stated that Mr. Punit Aggarwal vide its email dated 17.03.2020 for the first time informed the Complainant/ Applicant that they had lodged a complaint on 13.03.2020 qua the fabrication of the Bank Guarantee before the Mumbai Police Station only after knowing that the Complainant/ Applicant is already aware that the Bank Guarantee in issue is forged. xiii. It is stated that Mr. Nilesh Mhatre and Mr. Punit Aggarwal were known to each other for 7-8 years and they do have several financial transactions with each other. It is stated that that 65 Lakh was given towards a loan against property to Mr. Nilesh Mhatre on 22.04.2019 and several other financial transactions which show the connection of Mr. Nilesh Mhatre and Page No.12/20 Mr. Punit Aggarwal.
xiv. It is stated that the Investigating Officer took lackadaisical approach and had not taken the statements of the Bank Officer whose names came out during the investigation of the fabricated/ forged Bank Guarantee. Further, as per Mr. Punit Aggarwal's representation dated 08.06.2020, on 15.02.2020 at the instruction of Mr. Nilesh Mhatre, Mr. Manish Ghadi received the forged bank Guarantee from the cabin of the Branch Manager of Allahabad Bank situated at Dadar West Branch. Further, as alleged, a call was received by Mr. Punit Aggarwal on 13.03.2020 from Ms. Prachi Agrawal, AGM, Allahabad Bank claiming to be from Regional Branch w.r.t. credit facility was not verified (as after this Mr. Manish Ghadi was sent to verify the genuinity of the Bank Guarantee in issue). It is noteworthy to mention here that this offence was committed and the involvement of bank officials cannot be ruled out, however, the Investigating officer miserably failed to dig deep into the root of the investigation and not even a single bank official was interrogated.
xv. It is stated that on 15.02.2020 the forged Bank Guarantee in issue was collected by the employee of Mr. Punit Aggarwal namely Mr. Manish Ghadi. It is most respectfully submitted that allegedly on Мг. Nilesh Mhatre instructions Mr. Manish Ghadi collected the fabricated/ forged Bank Guarantee from the person sitting inside the cabin of Branch Manager Allahabad Bank, however, the Investigating Officer miserably failed to confirm the same from the CCTV video recording of the bank nor has traced the said person during the investigation.
25. It is stated that the Investigating Officer while submitting the Closure Report dated 15.12.2021 has not levelled charges against any of the Page No.13/20 person(s), as if no offence has been committed. It is most respectfully submitted that the investigation was done in a haste manner and it is merely a shifting of responsibility.
26. It is stated that the Investigating Officer has failed to take into consideration the following aspects:
a) It is stated that the offence of cheating, and forgery is duly proved on the bare perusal of the Complaint, however, the Investigating Officer miserably failed to charge-sheet any person for the commission of the offence.
b) It is stated that the prime Accused in FIR No. 19 of 2020 namely, Mr. Nilesh Mhatre, Mr. Abdul Farooqui, Mr. Mandar Tendulkar were not even interrogated to elicit the truth in reference to FIR No. 66 of 2020.
c) It is stated that the accomplice Le. Mr. Punit Aggarwal was not charge-
sheeted despite knowing that Mr. Punit Aggarwal has concealed material facts which is evident from the email dated 13.03.2020 wherein Mr. Punit Agarwal sought time for replacing the original Bank Guarantee despite knowing that the Bank Guarantee submitted was forged and that Mr. Punit Aggarwal had already filed a complaint dated 13.03.2020 before Mumbai Police Station.
d) It is stated that the Investigating Officer had not taken any steps qua arresting or interrogate (i) Mr. Suraj Chouhan from Delhi who had an account in Allahabad Bank, Karol Bagh in the name of "Buying Overseas",
(ii) Mr. A.K. Basu (Mr. A.K. Bose) from Kolkata and (iii) Mr. Sidharth Page No.14/20 Sharma from Delhi who were also allegedly involved in the preparation of the forged Bank Guarantee.
27. It is stated that from the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is evident that the Investigating Officer has failed to carry out a detailed investigation and a substantial and vital aspect of the matter has not been investigated at all. Further, none of the person(s) charged for the commission of the offence, which suggests that the investigation is influenced.
28. It is stated that it is evident from the aforementioned that a further investigation which is monitored by this Court is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice in the instant case. That further, in terms of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Virubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. vs The State of Gujarat and Ors. (2019) 7 SCC 1 this Court is fully empowered to order a further investigation in the interest of justice.
29. Having considered the facts as propounded by the complainant himself, consequently investigation by the concerned investigating agency, inferences and suggestions made in police report, counter suggestions made in protest petition, this court is of considered opinion that opinion given by IO filed in police report cannot be found fault with. This court is of understanding that police report at hand is not suggesting that there is no offence, rather it is suggesting that offence has been committed and same has been investigated and police report has already been filed by EOW, PS Shivaji Park, Mumbai.
30. Having perused the entire record carefully, the factual matrix that Page No.15/20 appears is that one bank guarantee of amount Rs. 7.20 Crore was presented to the complainant, which is statutory body under Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. For exploration of oil and natural gas under the scheme for Development of Discovered Small fields of oil and gas. Upon preliminary enquiry conducted by complainant, Bank guarantee was found to be forged and fabricated and thus complainant was compelled to file complaint before EOW through its officer one Sh. Vijay Kumar, General Manager, Geology on behalf of Director General of Hydro Carbons (DGH). Upon the investigation conducted by Investigating Agency i.e. EOW, it was found that the bank guarantee submitted before the complainant is indeed forged. The IO further found out that qua the same bank guarantee and on same allegation of forgery, an FIR has already been registered with EOW, Mumbai.
31. It was found out by IO that FIR in Mumbai is prior in time to the present FIR and upon investigation by EOW, Mumbai, it was found out that bank guarantee has been forged by one Neelesh Mhatre. The Bank guarantee was presented to the complainant through a body corporate called Arsh Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. which subsequently changed it s name to M/s Duganta Oil and Natural Gas Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has alleged that Punit Agarwal is the offender and he is the one who has fabricated bank guarantee to cheat the complainant causing wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to himself. It is worth mentioning here that the said Punit Agarwal is head of business development of M/s Duganta Oil and Natural Gas Pvt. and also the son-in-low of the director of the said company.
32. Very interestingly, in FIR (CR No. 110-2020, PS Shivaji Park and Page No.16/20 now with EOW Mumbai) Punit Agarwal is the complainant and he stated that Nilesh Mhatre has played fraud upon him as Nilesh Mhatre obtained Rs 80 lacs from him and provided him the forged Bank Guarantee. EOW Mumbai has carried out the investigation regarding the forge Bank Guarantee and has also arrested three accused persons. Punit Agarwal is the victim (complainant) in that FIR. Punit Agarwal is victim in that case (as the chargesheet filed by EOW Mumbai suggests) and there is no involvement of Punit Agarwal in preparation of forge Bank Guarantee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and material on record no evidence is there which suggest that Punit Agarwal was aware or had knowledge that the Bank Guarantee which was submitted by his company was forged. As per the investigation conducted so far on analysis of bank account and the material came on record, it seems that alleged company/person were under the bonafide belief that the questioned Bank Guarantee was genuine.
33. At this juncture, it is absolutely necessary to discuss the role of said Nilesh Mhatre. As per police report, said Nilesh Mhatre was friend of Punit Agarwal and as per investigation done by EOW, PS Shivaji Park, Mumbai, he is the one who forged the bank guarantee. A background of the transaction between Punit Agrawal and Nilesh Mhatre is also important and necessary for adjudicative discussion. As per police report, a bank guarantee of 7.2 crore was required by Arsh Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of tender floated by complainant and as Arsh Corporate Services did not have the said sum of money, it, through Punit Agarwal, approached Nilesh Mhatre, who agreed to provide the said bank guarantee, through lawful means upon payment of certain fees/ charges.
Page No.17/2034. The factum of Punit Agarwal contacting Nilesh Mhatre for purpose of bank guarantee is established by whatsapp chat between the two and banking transaction from account of Punit Agarwal to account of Nilesh Mhatre, which shows that Nilesh Mhatre provided him forged bank guarantee. It can be said that act of forgery was complete when bank guarantee came to the hand of Punit Agarwal.
35. It is cardinal principal of criminal law that in order to establish an offence i.e. culpability of the offence not only there has to be an act but also the requisite criminal intention. In the matter at hand, police investigation has clearly shown that neither Punit Agarwal has knowledge of forgery nor did he recourse to any illegal means to obtain said bank guarantee. The investigation conducted shows that there is no evidence which can suggest that Puneet Agarwal was aware or had knowledge that the bank guarantee which was submitted by the said company that is Arsh Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. to the complainant was was forged. As per the investigating agency, its opinions are duly supported by the banking transactions and other material on record. It's clearly appears that the aforesaid company, represented through Puneet Agarwal was under the believe that the Bank Guarantee was genuine. This court finds no fault with the inferences drawn here by the IO, since the same is duly supported by the material on record.
36. From careful scrutiny of the protest petition, it appears that complainant repeatedly harped upon that IO has suggested that no offence has been committed in the matter in hand. In the considered opinion of this court, the same is misplaced. The police report does not suggest that no offence has been committed nor does it say that bank guarantee was not Page No.18/20 forged. Rather, it says bank bank guarantee was indeed forged though not by Punit Agarwal, who is stated to be an accused by the complainant. The court cannot lost sight of the fact that act of forgery of bank guarantee and submitting the bank guarantee to the complainant are two separate act divorced by time and knowledge in its background. Whereas no evidence could be found of Punit Agarwal's knowledge of said forgery at the submissions of bank guarantee. On the other hand, the investigation has shown that Nilesh Mhatre alongwith two persons committed forgery and made Punit Agarwal victim of the same.
37. The protest petition does not highlight any specific pointer on which IO has not conducted investigation so as to suggest possibility of alternative finding or culmination of investigation. Protest petition repeatedly says that persons on key managerial position/ Directors of Company are real offenders, however, no cogent basis of said belief has been stated in the protest petition. EOW, PS Shivaji Park, Mumbai also filed its police report/ chargesheet qua the offence of forgery of bank guarantee and Punit Agarwal is not chargesheeted therein. This court, merely because complainant needs a scapegoat to justify its stand, cannot direct further investigation on the points which already have been investigated, to the satisfaction of court. It goes without saying that the one who has submitted bank guarantee, may not be necessarily be the only one who forged it. Though, it is understandable that for the complainant, the offender is one who has handed over the forged documents but this is not how the process of law works. The law requires clear malafide intention and specific act of creating forged document, which, in the matter in hand, cannot be attributed to Punit Agarwal.
Page No.19/2038. Before parting with this order, it is necessary to discuss the application filed by Nilesh Mhatre. Nilesh Mhatre is neither accused nor complainant in the present case. In considered opinion of this court, he does not have locus to file this application. Even otherwise, even with laxity of law, the said applicant Nilesh Mhatre has failed to highlight any cogent point so as to warrant any indulgence by this court and to order further investigation. To paraphrase the said application sans merit and dismissed accordingly.
39. Closure report is accepted. Application filed by complainant for further investigation is dismissed.
40. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
41. Copy of order be given dasti to all concerned. signed by ANUJ ANUJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH SINGH Date:
2025.05.24 18:52:27 +0530 (Anuj Kumar Singh) CJM/NDD/PHC/ND 24.05.2025 Page No.20/20