Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd vs Daljit Kaur Gorwara & Another on 20 July, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.38 of 2015 and Cr.MMO No. 132 of 2015.
.
Decided on: 20th July, 2016.
1. Cr.MMO NO. 38 of 2015.
M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.
.....Complainant/Petitioner.
of Versus Daljit Kaur Gorwara & another .....Respondents.
2. Cr.MMO No. 132 of 2015.
rt Dalijit Kaur Gorwara ...Petitioner.
Versus State of H.P. & another ....Respondents.
Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate in Cr.MMO No. 38 of 2015.
Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jamna Thakur, Advocate in Cr.MMO No. 132 of 2015.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jamna Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. in Cr.MMO No. 38 of 2015.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP...2...
Mr. R.S. Thakur, Addl. A.G. for respondents-State in both the .
petitions.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral).
Both the aforementioned petitions are being of disposed of by a common order as common question of facts and law are involved in them.
2. Accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara is a Director of M/s rt Arvind Casting Pvt. Ltd., and of M/s Arvind Trade Links Pvt.
Ltd.. Both the companies hold manufacturing activities within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of Police Station Haroli, Tehsil Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. The entities aforesaid purportedly secured from the complainant a loan/cash credit facility respectively constituted in sums of Rs. 5 crores and Rs.3 crores. The aforesaid loans/cash credit facility secured by the entities aforesaid wherein accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara held the position of a Director was for facilitating theirs manufacturing parts of tractors for M/s Intentional Traders Ltd., M/s Dana India Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Pvt. Ltd., besides other entities.
The relevant aforesaid assignments of manufacturing activities by the aforesaid entities vis-a-vis the entities ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...3...
wherein accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara along with other co-
.
accused holds the position of a Director, were subsequently detected to be forged besides fctitious. In sequel, an omnibus stain of fctitiousness stood ingrained in the sums of of money borrowed by M/s Arvind Casting Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Arvind Trades Links Pvt. Ltd., from the complainant M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.. An FIR stood lodged with Police rt Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P. against M/s Casting Pvt. Ltd.
And M/s Arvind Trades Links Pvt. Ltd., through its directors qua theirs obtaining loans/cash credit facility from the complainant company by committing forgery of relevant documents. The FIR aforesaid stood lodged on 19.05.2014.
However, on its standing lodged, none of the Directors of M/s Arvind Casting Pvt. Ltd and of M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd., rendered prompt cooperation to the police authorities concerned. Consequently, accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara and co-accused Arvinder Singh on look out notices issued by the Himachal Pradesh Police, stood detained at Culcutta Air Port on 12.12.2014 by the Culcutta police. Even thereat one co-
accused Amrender Singh Gorwara remained unarrested. He preferred an application before this Court for grant of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...4...
anticipatory bail which stood dismissed by this Court. The .
SLP preferred by him before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein he assailed the order of this Court dismissing his bail petition also stood rejected on 15.07.2014 by the Hon'ble Apex of Court. Even upto date he is under absconsion.
3. The custody of co-accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara and Arvinder Singh Gorwara was taken on 15.12.2014 by the rt police ofcials of Police Station, Haroli, from the court of ACJM, Bairkpur. The custody of co-accused Sahil was taken on 6.11.2014 by the police ofcials of Police Station, Haroli from the Court of learned ACJM, Ambala, whereafter he was produced before the ACJM, Una on 7.11.2014, in sequel whereto he was ordered to sufer both police besides judicial incarceration for 90 days. However, since the Investigating Ofcer concerned did not institute the relevant report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction hence, by statutory operation of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., he inconsonance therewith was aforded by the JMIC, Una the beneft of statutory bail.
Daljit Kaur Gorwara was produced before the JMIC, Una on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...5...
17.12.2014. She thereat sufered police remand for two .
days. On conclusion whereof, she preferred an application under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.1, Una, District Una, H.P. The of application aforesaid stood allowed by the JMIC concerned.
The complainant/petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the rendition comprised in Annexure P-1, whereby the facility of rt bail stands accorded to accused Daljit Kaur.
4. The vestment of jurisdiction in this Court, to, dehors the order impugned hereat standing not assailed by the petitioner/complainant by its constituting a petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. or dehors its not preferring an apposite petition before the Court concerned which pronounced the rendition comprised in Annexure P-1, claiming therein relief para meteria vis-a-vis the one canvased hereat, yet adjudicate upon the petition at hand stands frmly rested by a verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and another, AIR 2013 SC 296, the relevant paragraph No.7 whereof reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP...6...
"7. In Gurcharan Singh and Ors. Etc. v. State (Delhi .
Administration) Manu/SC/0420/1978:(1978)1 SCC 118, the Appellant Gurcharan, who was Superintendent of Police, was charged along with other police personnel Under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the preliminary inquiry six alleged eye-witnesses, who were police personnel, did not support the prosecution case. However, after the FIR of was lodged during the course of investigation, seven witnesses including the said six police personnel gave statements implicating Appellant Gurcharan Singh.
rt One eye witness ASI Gopal Das made statement under Section 164 of the Code in favour of the prosecution.
Learned Sessions Judge released Appellant Gurcharan Singh on bail after observing that there was little to gain by him by tampering with witnesses who had, themselves already tampered with their evidence by making contradictory statements. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that after reviewing the entire material he was of the opinion that there was little probability of Appellant Gurcharan Singh feeing from justice of tampering with the witnesses. He noted that having regard to the character of evidence he was inclined to grant bail. The prosecution moved the High Court under Section 439(2) of the Code for cancellation of the said order. The High Court inter alia observed that considering the nature of the ofence and the character of the evidence, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with and all other relevant factors, he had no option but to cancel the bail. The high Court observed that learned Sessions Judge did not exercise his judicial discretion on relevant well recognized principles. An appeal was carried from the said order to this Court. This Court observed that the power of the High Court and the Sessions Court ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...7...
under Section 439(1) of the Code are much wider than .
those conferred on a court other than the High Court and Sessions Court in respect of bail. However, certain considerations which have to be taken into account are common to all courts. This Court noted that gravity of the circumstances in which the ofence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of of the accused feeing from justice; of repeating the ofence; of jeopardizing his own life being faced with a grim prospect of a possible conviction in the case; of rt tampering witnesses; the history of the case as well as its investigation and such other relevant grounds will have to be taken into account. To ascertain whether there is prima facie case against the accused, character of the evidence will have to be considered. While confrming the High Court's interference with the discretion exercised by the Sessions Court, this Court expressed its displeasure about the unwarranted premature comments made by the Sessions Court on the merits of the case when at that stage it was only called upon to consider whether prima facie case was made out under against the accused our not. This Court particularly referred to statement of ASI Gopal Dass, recorded under Section 164 of the Code and observed that this witness had made no earlier contradictory statement and the taint of unreliability could not be attached to his statement at that stage as was done by the Sessions Court. This Court found that the Sessions Court was not alive to legal position that there was no substantive evidence recorded against the accused until the eye-witnesses were examined in the trial. Serious note was taken of the fact that the Sessions Court had not focused its attention on relevant considerations. The approach of the Sessions Judge ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...8...
was viewed as sufering from serious infrmity and .
cancellation of bail was endorsed."
5. The aforesaid view taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision supra stands reiterated in a decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. of 350 of 2010, titled as Anil Kumar Bansal versus State, decided on 4.7.2011, relevant paragraph No. 17 whereof rt stands extracted hereinafter:-
"17. The present petition has been admittedly fled by the petitioner as a revision petition. An order granting bail is an interlocutory order (Refer to Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 2185). Similarly, an order refusing bail or an order cancelling bail has been held to be an interlocutory order. This a view expressed by Orissa, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. It may be pertinent here to refer to a Division Bench judgment of the Orissa High Court in Durga Prasad Sao Vs. State of Orissa, 1983 Cri LJ 1590, where the question as to whether the order regarding granting, refusing or cancelling a bail are interlocutory orders or not has been dealt with and it has been held that all these orders are essentially interlocutory orders. The reasons for holding this view is that the grant or the cancellation of a bail does not determine the guilt or the innocent of the accused nor does it terminate the trial and conversely successive bail applications lie at the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...9...
stage of investigation or trial provided that there is .
a change in circumstances or new facts are discovered. If that be so, then on account of statutory bar under Section 397(2) Cr.PC, it has been held that the orders granting, refusing or canceling the bail being interlocutory orders cannot be subject matter of revision by the superior of Courts."
6. Further in Bhimshi Rambhai Gojiya versus State of Gujarat & 1, Criminal Misc. Application No. rt 20757 of 2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has analogously held as under:-
"8. It is manifest on a plain reading of Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code that the jurisdiction to direct that any person, who has been released on bail under Chapter XXXIII of the Code, be arrested and committed to the custody, is vested both in the Court of Sessions and the High Court, even though the bail order may have been made by a Magistrate. Even a bare reading of the provision leaves no doubt as to the fact that the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions and the High Court is a concurrent jurisdiction and there is nothing in the provision itself even remotely suggesting that the High Court cannot entertain an application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code directly, that is, without an approach having been frst made to the Court of Sessions in that behalf. It is also not brought to out notice that a practice has grown in our High Court whereby an application for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...10...
cancellation of bail is not directly entertained by .
the High Court and if somebody makes such an application directly to the High Court he is asked to approach the Sessions Court frst or that such an application directly made to the High Court is transmitted down to the concerned Sessions Judge for hearing and disposal. In face, we were told at of the bar that all along such application for cancellation of bail are directly entertained by the High Court even though the bail order might have been made by a judicial Magistrate."
7. rt A perusal of the order impugned herebefore by the complainant unfolds the factum of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una proceeding to aford to accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara the facility of bail merely on the ground of hers being a woman. Though statutory tenacity to the ground aforesaid constituted in the impugned order embodied in Annexure P-1 generates from the provisions engrafted in Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
437. When bail may be taken in case of non- bailable offence. 1
1. When any person accused of, or suspected of, the commission of any non- bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but-
(i) such person shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life;
(ii) such person shall not be so released if such offence is a cognizable offence and he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:15 :::HCHP ...11...
imprisonment for seven years or more, or he had been previously convicted on two or more occasions of[ a non- bailable and .
cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more but not less than seven years]:
Provided that the Court may direct that a person referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail it such person is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm:
Provided further that the Court may also direct that a person referred to in clause (ii) be released on bail if it is satisfied that It is just and proper so to do for any other special reason: Provided also that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation of shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court.]
2. If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the rt investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non- bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his 1 guilt the accused shall, subject to the provisions of section 446A and pending such inquiry, be released on bail] or at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.
3. When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub- section (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary-
(a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or
(b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or
(c) otherwise in the interests of justice. (4)................................"
8. Nonetheless the ascription of a signifcation by the learned Magistrate concerned to the phrase "may direct" occurring in the relevant proviso, a, tinge of mandatoriness whereupon he proceeded to hold of his per se given the factum of the accused being a woman holding an ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...12...
inviolable jurisdiction to release her, palpably spurs from his .
imputing an erroneous signifcation to the phrase "may direct" as exists therein. The appropriate signifcation borne by the phrase "may direct" occurring in the proviso to of Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. is contrarily of the Magistrate concerned while standing seized with a petition constituted before him under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. his merely rt holding discretion to order for the release of the accused, on evident material surfacing before him of the accused being under the age of 16 years or being a woman or being sick or infrm. The discretion to be exercised by him qua the aforesaid categories of persons enumerated in Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., neither is statutorily enjoined to be peremptorily exercisable by him on mere upsurgings of the factum aforestated rather is enjoined to be guided by attendant material personifcatory of the enjoined legal necessity of the relevant categories, rendering the appropriate cooperation to the Investigating Ofcer concerned for enabling him to unearth the truth of the penal misdemeanors ascribed to him/her by the Investigating Ofcer concerned. If the attendant circumstances unfold ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...13...
qua the dire necessity of the relevant category embodied in .
the relevant proviso sufering police remand, whereupon, alone the truth qua the incriminatory role ascribed to him/her by the Investigating Ofcer would stand unearthed of besides whereupon the dire necessity qua efectuation of recoveries from him/her would stand satiated, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate concerned to not within its rt ambit aford him/her the beneft of the contemplations manifested in the proviso aforesaid, more so when this court holds of the phrase "may direct" occurring therein holding a parlance of it not meteing a peremptory mandatory injunction upon the Magistrate concerned to qua the categories of persons embodied therein per se purveying the facility of bail to them. However for reasons assigned herinabove the learned Court concerned has made short shift qua the aforesaid dire necessity, of, the accused given the gravity of ofence committed by her, sufering police remand for a period longer than the one to which she stood subjected whereupon alone the necessary recoveries would stand efectuated by the Investigating Ofcer at her instance concomitantly also the curtailment of the police remand by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...14...
the order impugned hereinbefore is grossly unjust. Having .
wrested the trite issue of hence a pervasive stain of illegality imbuing the impugned rendition of the learned Magistrate concerned arising from the factum of his merely on the anvil of of accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara being a woman his proceeding to aford to her the facility of bail besides, given the factum of the gender of accused Daljit Kaur, his drawing rt an erroneous conclusion of the proviso within whose domain, he exercised the discretion of bail in her favour , holding a peremptory statutory mandatory injunction upon him qua his thereupon, standing enjoined to aford the facility of bail to her. As a corollary with falsity hence ingraining his conclusion spurring from a gross fallacious ascription lent by him qua the signifcation borne by the phrase "may direct"
constituted in Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. also when thereupon, he relegated in the realm of oblivion, the gravity of the ofence ascribed by the Investigating Ofcer to her also the opposition therebefore of the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned qua the facility of bail standing aforded to her, opposition whereof stemmed from the imperativeness qua the efectuation of the recoveries from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...15...
her person, whether hereat it is imperative for this Court to .
order for accused Daljit Kaur standing subjected to police remand. The imperativeness of the accused Daljit Kaur standing ordered to face police remand, in sequel to this of Court quashing the impugned rendition of the Magistrate concerned would arise only when frm material stands evinced hereat in portrayal of the accused/respondent rt holding possession of the relevant items, recovery whereof can stand efectuated in a mode not other than hers standing ordered to be subjected to police remand.
9. Even before proceeding to pronounce upon the facet aforesaid, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent has with vigour contended of co-
accused, Sahil besides accused Daljit Kaur both during the course of theirs sufering police remand disclosing to the Investigating Ofcer concerned of absconding accused Amrender Singh Gorwara holding possession of the relevant items, obviously recoveries thereof warranting theirs standing efectuated from his person, concomitantly, rendering unnecessary any efectuation of their recoveries by the Investigating Ofcer at the instance of co-accused ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...16...
Sahil besides at the instance of accused Daljit Kaur. He .
contends thereupon of with accused Daljit Kaur not holding possession of any of the relevant items, recovery whereof is imperative would render unnecessary hers being ordered to of stand subjected to police remand. He also contends of with the Investigating Ofcer completing the investigations into the ofences, the concert at this stage of the Investigating rt Ofcer to beget efectuation of recoveries at her instance of the relevant items is merely an illusory exercise. The submission addressed hereat by the learned counsel appearing for accused Daljit Kaur, to oust the contention of the petitioner/complainant besides to discount the espousal of the learned Additional Advocate General, who conjointly, along with the counsel for the petitioner/complainant seeks an order from this Court for subjecting accused Daljit Kaur to police remand, holds no vigour as it stands erected on the mere factum of her son co-accused Amrinder Singh who purportedly holds possession of the relevant items, hence rendering their recoveries being concerted to be efectuated from her person during hers sufering police remand being wholly meaningless is a submission rather to misnavigate ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...17...
the investigation besides to preclude the Investigating .
Ofcer to efectuate the apposite recoveries from their person prominently when his absconsion per se stands generated by active connivance with him by accused Daljit of Kaur besides by accused Sahil. Furthermore, the aforesaid apposite disclosures made by accused Daljit Kaur besides by co-accused Sahil to the Investigating Ofcer during the rt course of theirs standing subjected to interrogation while theirs respectively sufering police remand qua the absconding accused holding the possession of the relevant items appears to stand reared by the absconsion of co-
accused Amrinder Singh besides theirs standing ingenuously invented by them for preempting the Investigating Ofcer to withhold his concert to efectuate the recovery of the relevant items from their respective persons. Even otherwise, the conduct aforesaid of the accused persons subsequent to the lodging of the FIR is reprehensible.
Moreover, given the gravity of the ofence committed by the accused besides the stealth employed by the co-accused to baulk the Investigating Ofcer to uncover the truth of the entire case, constrains this Court to conclude of the order ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...18...
impugned hereat warranting its standing quashed and set .
aside.
10. Consequently, the order impugned before this Court comprised in Annexure P-1, appended to Cr.MMO No. of 38 of 2015 is quashed and set aside. The Investigating Ofcer is directed to take accused Daljit Kaur in custody forthwith. rt
11. Even at this Stage, Mr. N.K.Thakur, learned Senior Advocate appearing for accused Daljit Kaur has with great fervor made a address before this Court of the companies aforesaid wherein accused Daljit Kaur holds the position of a Director being in the process of liquidating the loan liability towards the complainant company, factum whereof denudes her penal culpability. Even, if some loans borrowed by the companies aforesaid wherein accused Daljit Kaur holds the position of a Director, are in the process of liquidation of loan amounts vis-a-vis the complainant company, yet the aforesaid apposite process of liquidation of loans by the respondent/accused towards the complainant company would not either subtract or erase the efect of the purported ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...19...
forgery committed by the respondent/accused to secure .
loan/cash credit facility from it.
Cr.MMO No. 132 of 2015.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner of has contended of with the entire fnancial transactions occurring at Chandigarh renders the lodging of a FIR at Police Station, Haroli, District Una to be in detraction of the rt mandate of Section 177 of the Cr.P.C., provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
"177. Ordinary place of inquiry or trial .- Every ofence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed."
He contends that with the ofences ascribed by the prosecution to the accused standing hence committed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the criminal courts located at Chandigarh , the FIR lodged at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, H.P. besides initiation of consequential proceedings in sequel thereto sufer from want of jurisdiction. He urges thereupon of the FIR besides, consequential proceedings in sequel thereto standing ordered to be quashed and set aside.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP...20...
13. However, the aforesaid submission holds no .
vigour given the disclosure made before this Court by the Investigating Ofcer, who is present before this Court today, of M/s Arvind Casting Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Arvind Trades Links of Pvt. Ltd, wherein accused Daljit holds the position of a Director, standing located within the territorial limits of Police Station Haroli also his making a discloser of both the rt entities aforesaid holding manufacturing activities thereat.
Since, the entities aforesaid borrowed loan/cash credit limit facility from the complainant company for facilitating theirs under forged assignments of M/s International Traders Ltd., M/s Dana India Pvt. Ltd and M/s Mahindra and Mahindra, theirs purportedly holding thereat the relevant manufacturing activities for them, renders the lodging of the FIR at Police Station, Haroli to be not outside the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. Even if assumingly any of the fnancial transactions occurred at Chandigarh yet with a mandate standing engrafted in Section 177 of the Cr.P.C., of Criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction whereat the consequences of penal misdemeanors attributed to the accused "ensue" also holding jurisdiction to try the ofences, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...21...
trial whereof would occur only on the police station .
concerned lodging an apposite FIR, for enabling cognizance thereupon by the Court concerned besides for facilitating the trial of the ofenders/accused named in FIR, when construed of in harmony with the factum of the consequences of borrowings or of the availment of cash credit limit by the accused from the complainant company in the capacity of rt hers being a Director of M/s Arvind Casting Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Arvind Trades Links Pvt. Ltd., for the latter's beneft, would "ensue" within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of Police Station Haroli, more so, constituted by the factum of the accused companies holding the relevant manufacturing activities thereat renders the lodging of the FIR at Police Station, Haroli,District Una, H.P., to be jurisdictionally valid.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted with vigour before this Court of the inculpation of the accused/respondent being meritless as she has not derived any personal beneft from the borrowings made by the accused company from the complainant company. However, the aforesaid submission has no force as with the material on record unfolding of hers ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...22...
in the capacity of a Director of M/s Arvind Casting Pvt. Ltd.
.
and M/s Arvind Trades Links Pvt. Ltd., securing in pursuance to apposite resolutions of which she is signatory, the loan facility from the complainant company. In aftermath, she is of to be concluded to be holding connivance besides complicity with other co-accused in the purported penal misdemeanors of hers along with them forging documents for availing for rt the beneft of the accused company(ies) wherein she holds the position of a director, fnance/cash credit facility from the complainant company.
15. For the foregoing reasons, Cr.MMO No. 38 of 2015 is allowed and the impugned order, Annexure P-1, appended thereto, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned granted bail to accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara is quashed and set aside. She is directed to be forthwith taken into custody by the Investigating Ofcer. However, Cr.MMO No. 132 of 2015, preferred at the instance of accused Daljit Kaur Gorwara for the cancellation of FIR is dismissed.
However, it is open to accused Daljit Kaur subsequent to hers standing taken into custody by the Investigating Ofcer, to move for grant bail before the appropriate court of law ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP ...23...
and the court concerned shall decide her application in .
accordance with law its remaining uninfuenced by any fndings recorded by this Court.
20th July, 2016 (Sureshwar Thakur)
of
(jai) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:51:16 :::HCHP