Allahabad High Court
Amit Jha And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And ... on 30 August, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved on 21.07.2022 Delivered on 30.08.2022 Court No. - 10 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 5227 of 2021 Applicant :- Amit Jha And Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Singh,Abhishek Misra,Ishan Baghel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pranjal Krishna Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed, praying for quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No.39 of 2018 'Sanjeev Agarwal Vs. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited and others, under Sections 406, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, pending in the Court of VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 30, Lucknow.
2. In the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2, Sanjeev Agarwal, 11 persons have been arraigned as accused, including the applicant, and three unknown persons. The accused are M-Tech Developers Limited and its two Directors, namely, Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha, Raman Rai, an employee of the M-Tech Developers Limited. The second company, which is arraigned as accused, is ANS Constructions Private Limited and its two Directors, namely, Mahinder Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Sharma, authorized signatories, Jayant Kumar and Umesh Kumar. The third company is ANS Developers Private Limited and the applicant, who is said to be the Director of ANS Developers Private Limited.
3. The facts narrated in the complaint briefly are that in the year 2007, M-Tech Developers Limited, its Directors, Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha, in collaboration with ANS Constructions Private Limited, launched a housing-scheme in Baghamau area of Gomti Nagar Extension by the name of "M-Tech City". It was promised that possession of fully developed plots would be delivered to the customers within a time-frame of 30 months. The complainant, having come-across, the advertisement about the said project, booked 9 plots, 3 each in the name of himself, his wife (Smt. Sunita Agarwal) and sister-in-law (Smt. Beena Agarwal) in the year 2007. The customers, including the complainant, were convinced by Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha, the Directors of the M-Tech Developers Limited, that prices of the plots would rise four times within 3-4 years. Despite making payments towards booking of the 9 plots, the accused, M-Tech Developers Limited, Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha never gave any allotment letter/agreement either to the complainant, his wife Smt. Sunita Agarwal or sister-in-law, Smt. Beena Agarwal. Further, allegation is that the complainant had made payments of Rs. 3,72,000/- in three installments each of Rs. 1,24,000/- towards booking of 3 plots in his name, Rs. 5,58,000/- in three installments each of Rs.1,86,000/- towards booking of 3 plots in name of his wife, Smt. Sunita Agarwal and Rs.4,96,000/- towards payment of booking of 3 plots in the name of his sister-in-law, Smt. Beena Agarwal. In spite of making payments, as mentioned above, even after 30 months, promised period, which got expired in July, 2009, M-Tech Developers Limited, Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha neither gave possession of the plots nor promised any further date of possession. In December, 2009, the complainant inspected the site and found that no work was being done, and then he realized that he along with his family members were cheated by the M-Tech Developers Limited and its Directors. The M-Tech Developers Limited, Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha projected themselves to be the owner of the land at the strength of some forged documents. However, later on, it was revealed that they were not owners of the land and, they did not have any approval from the State Government for the said project nor any layout plan was approved by the Lucknow Development Authority (for short 'LDA').
4. It was further alleged in the complaint that the complainant tried to meet Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha many times, but all in vain. In 2011, the said project was scrapped on the ground that necessary approval from the State Government could not be obtained. The accused did not return the booking amounts, as mentioned above, to the complainant and his two family members. Thereafter, the M-Tech Developers Limited through its Directors, named above, entered into an agreement with ANS Constructions Private Limited, Mahinder Sharma (in the capacity of Director in ANS Constructions Private Limited) Mahesh Kumar Sharma, is other Director of ANS Constructions and Jayant Kumar and Umesh Kumar of ANS Constructions Private Limited are the authorized signatory of the ANS Constructions. Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha connived with Mahesh Kumar Sharma of ANS Constructions Private Limited. As per the agreement, between the M-Tech Developers Limited and ANS Constructions Private Limited, it was decided to offer flats instead of plots to the customers, who had booked plots after some allottees approached the High Court. The complainant also approached Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha in New Delhi and requested them to give flats to him as per the agreement arrived at between the M-Tech Developers Limited and ANS Constructions Private Limited. The complainant was assured that he would get the flats in place of plots.
5. It was further alleged in the complaint that in January, 2012, the complainant again approached Mahinder Sharma, Amit Jha and Raman Rai etc. and then he was told that now the project would be carried out with the help of company called as 'ANS Developers' (now known as Shalimar Lake City Private Limited), accused no. 10 in the complaint. The complainant thereafter met applicant, Khalid Masood, Director, Shalimar Lake City Private Limited. The applicant allegedly told the complainant that company, Shalimar Lake City Private Limited, had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short MoU') with M-Tech Developers Limited and ANS Constructions Private Limited and some of the land was bought by Shalimar Lake City Private Limited and Shalimar Lake City Private Limited would be carrying out constructions of the flats. It was agreed between the complainant and co-accused, Amit Jha that the complainant would be given flats in new project at 5% discount against his booking of plots.
6. A MoU was executed between the complainant and Amit Jha, Director of M-Tech Developers Limited in presence of the applicant, stating that 9 flats @ 1,650/- per square feet would be given to the complainant. The applicant asked the complainant to return all his original receipts obtained at the time of booking of the plots and on insistence of the applicant, the complainant gave all original receipts to Mahinder Sharma and Amit Jha. The complainant had further alleged that accused nos. 1 to 9, as per the list of accused persons in the complaint, launched a township in the name of 'One World' at village Baghamau, Gomti Nagar Extension and, they floated schemes of flats in the name of 'Periwinkle Glory' and 'Vista'. It was further alleged that when the complainant met the accused and asked them to give him flats either in Periwinkle Glory or Vista @ 1,650/- per square feet, as agreed in the MoU, the accused avoided and, later refused to give flats to him.
7. Further allegation is that in 2013, some of the accused went to house of Smt. Beena Agarwal and mischievously got her signatures on some documents without allowing her to read them and gave refund of principal amount in lieu of 3 plots, booked in her name in the year 2007. No interest was paid to Smt. Beena Agarwal on the withheld amount by the accused from 2007 till the year 2013. When the complainant met the applicant and told him that because of his insistence, the complainant returned the original receipts to co-accused, the applicant should ensure delivery of possession of the flats, as promised in the MoU @ 1,650/- per square feet. However, the applicant told the complainant that he had no concern with the flats in the projects either in the Periwinkle Glory or Vista. Thereafter, the complainant's attempt to contact accused could not suceed.
8. Later on, on 29.11.2017, co-accused Raman Rai, allegedly called the complainant to his office by making a telephonic call and sending WhatsApp message. The complainant along with his wife, Smt. Sunita Agarwal and employee, Ravi Shukla visited the office of Raman Rai. Raman Rai informed the complainant that accused nos. 2, 3, 7 and 9, mentioned in the complaint, had asked him to inform the complainant that he should be given plots in a new upcoming project at Gosaiganj, Lucknow. Raman Rai had offered the complainant for a site visit to Gosaiganj and the complainant visited the site at Gosaiganj. When the complainant, along with his wife and employee, arrived at the said site, the complainant found that 3 unknown persons present at the site, who told the complainant that he should contact applicant, Khalid Masood for redressal of his grievance. The complainant told these 3 unknown persons that the applicant was not able to meet him and, he had nothing to do with other accused persons and, it would be appropriate to return his money with interest upon which the complainant and his wife were beaten up and abused by Raman Rai and 3 unknown persons. It was further alleged that the complainant and his wife were threatened to face dire consequences if they would ask for return of the money again. It was further alleged that the complainant immediately informed police about the incident, but no action was taken. Co-accused, Amit Jha called the complainant on his mobile on 30.11.2017 and threatened him to falsely implicate him in some criminal cases and would ensure that the complainant would go to jail.
9. The learned Magistrate, after considering contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant, recorded under Section 200 CrPC, and witnesses, Tauseef Ahmad and Smt. Sunita Agarwal under Section 202 CrPC, summoned the applicant and other accused vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2018.
10. Heard Mr. I.B. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Satendra Singh, representing applicants, and Mr. Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, as well as Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the record.
11. Applicant Nos. 1 and 2, Amit Jha and Mahinder Sharma were Directors of M-Tech Developers Private Limited, a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Applicant no. 2 is also Director of M/s ANS Constructions Private Limited. Applicant no. 3, Raman Rai is a practicing Advocate, registered with the Bar Council of U.P. vide Registration No.UP-04662/2005 dated 09.09.2005, while applicant no. 4, Mahesh Sharma was a Director of M/s ANS Constructions Private Limited, a company duly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act.
12. Accused, M/s ANS Constructions Private Limited (accused no. 5 in the complaint) had entered into a consortium agreement dated 01.08.2006 with M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited with an object to develop a real estate project in Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly, a proposal was submitted to the State Government for selection of private developers under the integrated township policy. On 23.08.2006, a license was granted by the Lucknow Development Authority (for short 'LDA') in favour of M/s ANS Constructions Private Limited for developing a housing scheme at village Baghamau, Lucknow. Pursuant to the license granted by the LDA, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited, (accused no. 1 in the complaint) purchased about 300 acres of land collectively at villages Chandiamau, Baghamau ad Bhaiswara, Tehsil and Pargana Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in accordance with the terms of policy of integrated township and the remaining 200 acres of land was to be provided by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. A total area of the land for the project was 500 acres.
13. Several customers, in pursuance to the advertisement, submitted advance provisional registration form on payment of registration/booking amount and total number of such customers was around 1700, who had submitted their applications for allotment of plots. The complainant, his wife and sister-in-law booked 9 plots, 3 each, and paid cumulatively 14,26,000/- to M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited in 2007. In June, 2008, the license dated 23.08.2006 granted by the LDA to ANS Constructions Private Limited was cancelled by the LDA on the ground that land proposed to be allotted to the M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited was acquired by the State Government for the use of development of sewage treatment plant and thereby resulted in reduction of land for development of integrated township. After cancellation of the license, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited applied for grant of new license and registration of the proposed project on 16.02.2010. New license was granted by the LDA for an area of 226.30 acres in village Baghamau only. However, the said new license granted to the consortium of M/s ANS Constructions Private Limited was valid till 15.02.2012. It is said that out of these 226.30 acres of land to be allotted in village Baghamau, the LDA used around 40 acres of land for construction of 'Bandha' and thereby leaving 187.80 acres of land in village Baghamau. Out of 187.80 acres land, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited was assigned only 79.81 acres of land in village Baghamau for residential purposes and remaining land was reserved for construction of shopping complex, school and roads by LDA.
14. It is submitted that because of the aforesaid compelling factors, the aforesaid project was cancelled, however, to protect the interest of its customers, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited proposed a group-housing project on the said land and proposed to construct residential flats in place of plots as the area allotted was reduced from 226.30 acres to 70.10 acres. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited issued public notices dated 20.06.2011 and 18.09.2011 in newspapers in Lucknow, proposing either to get the advance registration amount refunded or to transfer the amount for booking of residential apartments under the proposed group-housing apartments.
15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, few customers filed bunch of writ petitions before this Court, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2013 with an observation that the conditions offered by the M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited were reasonable and, it was also said that the dispute, between the parties, was private in nature and, extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was not available for settling the private dispute. This Court, in its order dated 04.07.2013 passed in bunch of writ petitions, being leading Misc. Bench No.7802 of 2012 (Rajiv Panjwani and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), noted that the terms given in the brochure, wherein it was clearly mentioned that if at any moment M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited would not be in a position to provide plots due to any legal/government policy or any unavoidable circumstances then the developers will be responsible for refund of the money along with simple interest @ 12%. The Court held that the said condition was applicable between the parties. The Court also noted the fact that the land area got reduced due to STP and when the land was got substantially reduced, it was not possible to provide the plots to the applicants. It was also held that the developers had already offered to allot flats on concessional rate @ 10% or to get back money by the persons, who had booked the plots with simple interest @ 12%. The Court found the said terms reasonable one and, dismissed the bunch of the writ petitions.
16. It is said that the MoU was signed between the M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited and complainant-respondent no. 2, Sanjeev Agarwal, who acted on behalf of his wife, Smt. Sunita Agarwal and sister-in-law, Smt. Beena Agarwal. In the said MoU dated 25.01.2012 (Annexure-10), the complainant agreed to surrender the plots and took 9 flats offered having an area of 1000/1100 square feet (two bed rooms flats) @ Rs.1,650/- per square feet, besides miscellaneous charges. The flats were to be delivered within 30 months. The site was mentioned as Baghamau, Gomti Nagar Extension. It was further said that 14.26 Lakh was already paid and balance booking amount of 15% would be paid at the time of launch of the flats and the balance amount would be paid in installment as per the schedule decided at the time of launch. Remaining 5% would be paid at the time of possession. Smt Beena Agarwal, sister-in-law of the complainant, however, requested for refund of the booking amount of Rs.4,96,000/- and, she filed an application along with affidavit dated 26.07.2013. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited accepted the said request and, on 16.09.2014 the payment was made to Smt. Beena Agarwal. It is further said that M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited launched project in the year 2016 as 'Periwinkle Glory'. The said project was registered with UPRERA.
17. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited offered units to the complainant, as stated in the MoU dated 25.01.2012, however, since no other customer, except respondent no. 2, came forward for residential flats in the said project, the said project was also abandoned and, the respondent no. 2 was called to take refund of the amount along with interest @ 12% per annum. It is further said that out of 1700 customers, who had booked the flats with M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited, 1665 customers had taken their booking amount back. It was the complainant, his wife and three others, who did not take the amount back with interest.
18. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi vide order dated 23.01.2017 passed an order in FIR No.0160 of 2009 (State Vs. Mahinder Sharma and others) for refund of the amounts of Lucknow customers/investors, who had booked plots in M-Tech City, Lucknow of M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited and, as per the directions of the Delhi High Court dated 23.05.2013, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited was ordered for disbursement of amount to the customers/investors. Mr. Udit Mishra, Advocate was appointed as Nodal Officer for ensuring proper supervision of the disbursement. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ordered to open a separate bank account in State of Bank of India, Saket Courts Complex Branch for Lucknow investors and, to deposit the entire amount in the said account. The Nodal Officer was also directed to visit fortnightly to Lucknow for settlement of grievances of Lucknow project.
19. It is said that in compliance of the said directions issued by the Delhi High Court and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi the amount of Lucknow investors was deposited in the bank as suggested by the Courts and, the payment was made to the investors/customers in due consultation with the new investigating officer. The Nodal Officer issued public notice to this effect on 09.03.2017 in 'Rashtriya Sahara'. It is submitted that vide Legal Notice dated 11.11.2017, the MoU dated 25.01.2012 executed between the M-Tech Developers Private Limited and, the complainant was cancelled on the ground that the complainant misrepresented to be an authorized signatory of Smt. Beena Agarwal. After service of the legal notice dated 11.11.2017 and invalidation of MoU, respondent no. 2, complainant filed a false, frivolous and vexatious complaint against the applicants. It is further submitted that the M-Tech Developers Private Limited is willing to refund the amount paid by the respondent no. 2 and, his wife which is aggregating to Rs. 9,30,000/- with interest from the date the said payment was made along with simple interest @ 12% per annum. The respondent no. 2, in the garb of said criminal complaint, has been making attempt to extort money from the M-Tech Developers Private Limited. No case for offence of cheating of criminal breach of trust, as alleged, is made out against the applicants. The matter pertains to commercial transactions of pure civil nature regarding refund of the amount against booking of the properties. In respect of offences under Sections 323, 504 ad 506 IPC, it is submitted that the same are based on some false, incorrect and concocted story. The police, on verification of the facts, found the allegations, made in the complaint, false and, therefore, no FIR was registered.
20. On 09.01.2016, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited gave offer for allotment of flats to the complainant being developed by it. Basic rate, at the time of launch was Rs.3,200/- per square feet and 10% discount was offered on the basic rate to all the customers, who made advance provisional registration for plots in the project earlier. It was also said that if the complainant did not agree to accept the offer for booking of the flats in the said project, he could take his money along with 12% simple interest. It was further submitted that booking of the said flats would be confirmed once the complainant would send the application form duly filled and signed along with token cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of M/s M-Tech Developers Corporation. However, the complainant did not send application form along with token cheque of Rs.1,00,000/-, nor he wrote for taking the money back.
21. On behalf of the applicants, it has also been submitted that the complainant, Sanjeev Agarwal is facing cases of fraud, forgery and cheating etc. which are as under:-
i. FIR No.0202 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 IPC lodged at Police Station Aliganj, District Lucknow;
ii. FIR No.0271 of 2018, under Sections 120-B, 323, 384, 394, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow;
iii. FIR No.024 of 2016, under Sections 323, 342, 354, 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
iv. FIR No. 033 of 2021, under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
v. FIR No.0105 of 2017, under Section 406 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
vi. FIR No.0231 of 2018, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
vii. FIR No.0313 of 2019, under Sections 323, 394, 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
viii. FIR No.0379 of 2018, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
ix. FIR No.0403 of 2018, under Section 406 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
x. FIR No.0423 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
xi. FIR No. 0425 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
xii. FIR No.0616 of 2019, under Section 409 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
xiii. FIR No.0784 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
xiv. FIR No.0813 of 2019, under Sections 406 and 420 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow;
xv. FIR No. 0332 of 2019, under Sections 323, 341, 427, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow; and xvi. FIR No.0192 of 2019, under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC lodged at Police Station Vibhutikhand, Lucknow."
He was arrested and provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act have also been invoked against him. It has been further submitted that the complainant himself is a gangster/cheater, facing trial in several cases and, at present, he is absconding. It is, therefore, submitted that since the complainant himself has indulged in several litigations to arm twist the developers and real estate companies after paying the part sum, he cannot be believed and, his complaint is otherwise liable to be dismissed.
22. Mr. Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, complainant has submitted that the complainant, his wife and sister-in-law, had paid their hard-earned money of Rs.14,26,000/- way back in the year 2007 for booking of 9 plots as offered by the M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited. The M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited did not have the land bank for which the plots were offered after collecting huge amount from 7000 plots buyers/investors way back in the year 2007. Later on, the said project was cancelled and, it was said that in place of plots, flats would be constructed and the complainant would be offered discount of 5%. It is further submitted that accused-applicant, Amit Jha for the M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited and complainant along with his wife and sister-in-aw, Smt. Beena Agarwal entered into a MoU in front of Khalid Masood on 25.01.2012 in which the M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited agreed to give 9 flats of 2 bed-rooms etc @ Rs.16,50/- per square feet, after discount of 5%. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited launched Periwinkle Glory and Vista housing flats and, as per MoU dated 25.01.2012, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited should have allotted 9 flats in the said Periwinkle Glory to the complainant. It is further submitted that despite several requests made by the complainant to honour the MoU and allot him flats in Periwinkle Glory, the applicants paid no heed to the requests made by the complainant and, on persisting demand of allotment of the flats as per terms of the MoU, wife of the complainant, the complainant himself and Smt. Beena Agarwal, wife of younger brother of the complainant, were threatened. Learned counsel submits that offence against the applicants are clearly made out and, the application filed by the applicants, has no merit and, is liable to be dismissed.
23. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
24. It is not in dispute that the housing flats in the name of Periwinkle Glory and Vista were abandoned as except the complainant and very few, no other customer came to book the flats in the said project. The complainant was made offer to book the flats in other project as per the offer dated 09.01.2016 or to take refund of his money as per Brochure and the orders of this Court, Delhi High Court and the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The complainant did not send application form nor deposited the token amount for allotment of flats in other projects. The complainant cannot make any grievance for not allotting flats in Periwinkle Glory and Vista projects, which got abandoned. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited has always been willing to refund the amount with interest @ 12% and, even as of today, M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited is ready and willing to refund the money along with interest @ 12% per annum.
25. This Court asked Mr. Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, complainant, whether the complainant is willing to take his money back along with 12% interest, he said that the complainant is not willing to take money back along with interest. He is only interested in allotment of the flats as per the MoU dated 25.01.2012. This Court fails to understand that if the complainant did not come forward, pursuant to the offer dated 09.01.2016 made to him for booking of the flats in other projects, how would he be aggrieved, if the money paid by him in the year 2007 for booking of the plots is being offered to be refunded to him with interest @ 12% per annum. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings are nothing but a device of arm twisting the applicants to cleverly bargain. M/s M-Tech Developers Private Limited is willing to refund the money to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum and the complainant should not have any grievance in accepting the said amount.
26. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the learned Magistrate and the learned revisional Court have failed to appreciate the facts of the case inasmuch as no offence, as alleged, is made out against the applicants. The dispute is of civil nature, which has been given cloak of criminal proceedings. Thus, the application is hereby allowed and the impugned proceedings are hereby quashed.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.] Order Dated: 30th August, 2022.
MVS/-