Delhi District Court
Sh. Lalit Aggarwal vs Sh. Pramod Goil on 15 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SANJAY GARG-I : SPECIAL JUDGE-IV,
(PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CR No. 10/2016
ID No: 02401R0071792016
Sh. Lalit Aggarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal,
R/o A-50, Sector-2, Noida, U.P. ......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Pramod Goil,
S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal,
R/o 6, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Sh. Ritesh Goil,
S/o Late Sh. Pramod Kumar Goil,
R/o 6, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Sh. Mayur Goil,
S/o Late Sh. Pramod Kumar Goil,
R/o 6, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
4. Sh. Udit Goil,
S/o Late Sh. Pramod Kumar Goil,
R/o 6, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
5. M/s S.P. Jain & Co.,
Chartered Accountants,
Having its office at 6, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
6. Sh. M.P. Jain,
Chartered Accountant and Partner of
M/s P. Jain & Co., 6, Navyug Market,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 1 of 7
7. M/s Arun Virander & Co.,
Chartered Accountants
Having its office at
5-C/9, 2nd Floor, Opp. Liberty Cinema,
New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005
8. Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta,
Chartered Accountants & Partner,
5-C/9, 2nd Floor, Opp. Liberty Cinema,
New Rohtak Road, New Delhi - 110005
9. M/s Progressive Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at
208-210, D-4, Saket District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017
10. M/s Om Sai Infosoft Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its office at
370A, Pocket J&K, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi
11. M/s Magaon Papers Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its office at
20, Abul Faizal Apartments,
Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi
12. M/s S.M. Milkose Ltd.,
Having its office at
M-10, GK-II Market,
New Delhi - 110048 ....Respondents
Date of Institution : 02.02.2016
Date of Arguments : 06.02.2016
Date of Judgment : 15.02.2016
ORDER
1. The order impugned by this petition is dated 04.12.2015 of the Ld. CMM vide which the complaint and application u/s 156 (3) CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 2 of 7 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be returned to him to present it before the court of competent jurisdiction by observing that this court is not competent to take cognizance being devoid of jurisdiction.
2. Since the issue raised in this petition is regarding territorial jurisdiction of the court, therefore, without issuing notice to the respondents, petitioner was heard on this petition.
3. Heard Sh. Ramakant Sharma, Ld. counsel for petitioner and perused the trial court record.
4. Brief facts of the case are M/s Shree Bihari Forgings Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act on 15.03.2004 with two Directors i.e. petitioner and respondent no. 1. After few years dispute arose between two Directors with respect to management of the company and two petitions were filed by both the Directors before the Company Law Board in the year 2008 against each other. Respondent No. 1 is resident of Ghaziabad, he took control over the company and created a hostile atmosphere at the premises of the factory / manufacturing unit of the company so that petitioner must not enter the premises of the factory. Respondent No. 1 also became the sole signatory to do all the banking / financial transactions of the said company. Respondent No. 1 also siphoned funds of the company in several illegally open accounts of the company. Respondent No. 1 malafidely filed a forged and fabricated balance sheet for the assessment year (AY) 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 in the Income Tax Department signed by him under the signatures and consent of auditors respondent no. 7 & 8. As per Income Tax CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 3 of 7 Act, the balance sheet shall be signed by minimum two Directors of the company. Respondent No. 1 got balance sheets of the company illegally audited by respondent no. 5 & 6 and filed balance sheets audited and signed by respondent no. 5 for the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 & 2009-2010. Respondent No. 1 to 4 by suppressing sales and receiving differential compensation from respondent no. 9 to 12 have caused wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves thereby committing the offence of cheating u/s 420 IPC. Respondent No. 1, 2 & 5 to 8 had signed the balance sheets of the company which they were not legally entitled to sign which contain false, distorted and wrong facts and figures and thereby made a false document and committed the offence of forgery punishable u/s 465 IPC. Respondents have committed forgery and used the documents for the purpose of cheating and thereby committing offence of forgery u/s 468 IPC and 471 IPC. The registered office of the company was at D-31, Main Market, Gali Dharamshala Wali, Shakarpur, Delhi which was illegally changed by respondent no. 1 to 4 to 3/56, Ramgali, Pandav Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and Agreement to Sell and settlement cum cancellation of Agreement to Sell were signed at Delhi under the jurisdiction of Ld. CMM.
5. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Ld. Trial Court has erred in observing that the alleged offence if committed by the respondents have not been committed within the jurisdiction of that court. It has been stated that the Ld. Trial Court has wrongly held that simply because Income Tax office is situated within the jurisdiction of P.S. I.P. Estate does not ipso facto confer jurisdiction to the court to try the present complaint. It has been submitted that CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 4 of 7 Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that only if a part of offence is committed in a local jurisdiction of that court, the court will have jurisdiction to enquire into and try the matter. It has been stated that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the IO was satisfied with the complaint and has sent the matter for approval for registration of the FIR to concerned DCP.
6. As per Section 177 Cr.P.C. every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. As per Section 178 Cr.P.C. when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, it may be inquired into and tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
7. In the body of the complaint, petitioner was required to explain that how the alleged offence got committed in the territorial jurisdiction of Ld. CMM (Central). Admittedly as per complaint neither complainant is residing nor registered office of the company is situated in the jurisdiction of Ld. CMM (Central).
8. Ld. counsel for petitioner has submitted that in complaint it is alleged that respondent no. 1, 2 & 5 to 8 have signed the balance sheets of the company which they were not legally entitled to sign and had thereby made false document and committed the offence of forgery u/s 465 IPC. It has been stated that office of respondent no. 7 where alleged offence was committed is situated at opposite Liberty Cinema, New Rohtak Road, which comes under the jurisdiction of Central District. In revision petition, petitioner has CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 5 of 7 mentioned address of respondent no. 7 as of New Rohtak Road but in the TCR/complaint no such address of respondent no. 7 has been mentioned. Annexure-B filed by petitioner alongwith his complaint contains documents i.e. balance sheets etc. prepared by Arun Virander & Company (R7), Chartered Accountants, New Delhi, where the address of respondent no. 7 as of New Rohtak Road is not found mentioned.
9. Other contention raised by Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that the forged and fabricated income tax returns were filed in the Income Tax Office situated at I.P. Estate which falls in police district central and Ld. CMM (Central) was having jurisdiction over this area. Annexure-C filed alongwith complaint contains the balance sheets alleged to be filed by respondents in the Income Tax Department. Annexure-F is the reply filed by Income Tax Department to RTI application of the petitioner which shows that these Income Tax Returns were filed in Income Tax Office, Ward 8(3), C.R. Building,I.P. Estate, New Delhi. No doubt P.S. I.P. Estate comes under the jurisdiction of Ld. Trial Court being falling in Central District. The offene alleged are cheating, forging of documents and using the forged documents as genuine. Even if for the sake of arguments the contention raised by Ld. counsel for petitioner is accepted that respondents have forged and fabricated the records and Income Tax Returns, mere filing of these returns with Income Tax Office at I.P. Estate do not give jurisdiction to the local court to try this offence. P.S. in the area of which these documents were forged and fabricated, court of that P.S. will have jurisdiction to try these offences.
CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 6 of 710. Another contention raised by Ld. counsel for petitioner is that as per order of Ld. CMM, New Delhi dated 27.02.2015 complaint filed by petitioner before EOW Cell was transferred to DCP (Central) for investigation and the matter is pending with P.S. I.P. Estate. It is not clear that on what basis EOW Cell has transferred the investigation of this matter to DCP (Central). Merely on the basis of this fact that since EOW Cell has transferred this complaint to DCP (Central), it cannot be concluded that Ld. CMM (Central) has jurisdiction to try this matter.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The various grounds raised in this petition are found without merit. Therefore, petition is dismissed.
12. Copy of this order along with TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
13. This Revision Petition File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court (SANJAY GARG-I)
on 15th February, 2016 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC Act)
TIS HAZARI COURTS,DELHI
CR No. 10/2016 Lalit Aggarwal Vs. Pramod Goil & Ors. Page 7 of 7