Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manu Parashant Wig vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 November, 2019
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
CRM-M-49298-2019 -1-
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-49298-2019
Date of Decision : November 21, 2019
Manu Prashant Wig ...Petitioner
Verus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM ; HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present : Mr. Rahul Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.130 dated 5.10.2018 under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Phase 11, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali as well as quashing of charge sheet and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is one of the Director of Bluefox Motion Pictures Private Limited (for short 'the Company'). In order to raise capital, the Company invited investments from the financers and in this regard entered into various agreements with the investors. In pursuance thereof, the Company collected more than Rs.125 crores. Later on, the complainants got the impugned FIR registered against petitioner-Manu Prashant Wig, Ashok Wig, Harjit Singh, Pankaj Goyal and Priyesh Sinha with the allegations that all the accused persons published through various publications alluring the innocent persons to invest their money in the Company run by the petitioner, i.e. Bluefox Motion Pictures Private Limited. It is further stated in the FIR that the accused persons, gave 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 08:58:20 ::: CRM-M-49298-2019 -2- an impression that they will be making films, T.V. serials and organizing events in India and abroad and if a person invests Rs.One lac, the same will be returned as Rs.2.50 lacs within 11 months and if a person makes more investment, he will be given more incentives. Not only this, the accused persons conducted various events in the hotels across the country, including in Panchkula and Zirakpur by showing a rosy picture that if they invest their money in the Company they will get huge returns. The complainants/victims have given the details of the investments made by them from September, 2017 on wards. Later on, the accused declared that the Company has launched a new crypto-currency, namely, BFX coin, which is approved by the Government of India and the investors were asked to purchase the worthless crypto-coins to show their money transferred in e-wallets, in case they wanted their money to be refunded. It is further stated in the FIR that there is no such approval from the Government of India regarding the aforesaid crypto- currency and the accused persons by preparing forged documents for the purpose of cheating and by forging the valuable security, further forged the electronic record has cheated innocent persons, like the complainants. The complainants have also given the details how they have made the investments. Finding that the accused persons have failed to return the amount, the complainants have been cheated in a calculated manner, the present FIR was registered with the allegations that a huge amount of Rs.125 crores is misappropriated by the petitioner and the other accused persons.
Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon certain advertisements to show that the Company was working for the promotion of certain TV serials/regional movies. The counsel has further argued that as per 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 08:58:21 ::: CRM-M-49298-2019 -3- the agreement entered into between the Company and the accused persons, it was clarified that there is a risk clause and since the Company has suffered losses, the same could not be returned.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the dispute between accused and the complainants is of civil nature and, therefore, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon (2013) 3 SCC 330, Rajiv Thapar and others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, and submitted that the FIR can be quashed at any stage of trial if the accused has placed on record unimpeachable evidence and there is sufficient material to reject and over-rule the factual assertions contained in the complaint. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that if the Court is of the opinion that the prosecution will result into an abuse of process of law or would not serve the ends of justice, the same can be quashed.
After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I find no ground to quash the impugned FIR.
The FIR contains the details of the amount invested by the complainant. A perusal of the same agreement show that it was nowhere agreed that, later on, the amount will be siphoned off as crypto currency, i.e. BFX coins. The accused have agreed to pay a certain amount for 11 months and after expiry of a period of 11 months, the accused persons have refused to pay the amount by saying that the same is invested in the Company, which has run into losses.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 08:58:21 ::: CRM-M-49298-2019 -4- The contents of the FIR further show that the complainant has levelled specific allegations against accused that they have allured them to invest in the Company and in such manner, a huge amount of Rs.125 crores was collected by the accused persons which was later on siphoned off in other Companies, however, there was no such agreement between the petitioner and the complainant, therefore, from the FIR as well as the investigation conducted by the police, as per the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. sufficient evidence has come against the petitioner/accused that they have prima facie committed the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC.
The documents relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. certain posters, paper clippings regarding some regional movies cannot be considered as an authentic or unimpeachable documents.
Therefore, in view of the above, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the guidelines given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, 1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383, hence, the FIR/complaint can not be quashed and the present petition stands dismissed.
( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
November 21, 2019 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 08:58:21 :::