Delhi District Court
Judge (03) vs Nct Of Delhi on 22 July, 2015
Criminal Revision No.22/15
PSL Ltd. v. M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. & Ors
22.07.2015
Pre: AR for the revisionist.
Ld. APP for the State.
Respondent in person.
File perused, vide separate detailed order placed along side in
the file I do not find any substance to set aside the impugned order
dated 04.06.2015 at this stage as element of culpability can only be
attributed to the natural person but no natural person has come before
this court in this revision petition along with the juristic persons. Hence,
revision petition is dismissed. Accordingly, revision petition stands
disposed of. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with an attested
copy of the order.
Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No.22/15
PSL Ltd.
Through AR
Mr. Shashi Ranjan
Registered Office at
M-13-A, Punj House,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi.
........Revisionist
Versus
1. NCT of Delhi.
2. M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.
India Rayon Compound
Verawal, Gujarat - 352266.
Also at
2nd Floor, UCO Bank Building,
Parliament Street
New Delhi - 110001.
........Respondents
22.07.2015
ORDER:
1. By this order I shall dispose of the revision petition filed by the revisionist under section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the ld. ACMM, New Delhi whereby ld. Trial Court allowed the application filed u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC filed by the respondent no.2 and directed DCP, EOW to register the FIR and to investigate the matter accordingly.
2. The briefly facts of the case are that respondent no.2 filed a 2 complaint case no.9/4/14 titled as "M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. v. PSL Ltd. & Ors." along with an application u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC alleging therein that revisionist M/s. PSL Limited is one of the manufacturers of high-grade large diameter Helical Submerged Arc Welded (HSAW) pipes in India. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) had planned to operate through 1870 KM long Salaya- Mathura Pipe Line from Salaya (Near Vadinar) in Jamnagar district on the coast of Gujarat to bring crude oil to Indian Oil refineries at Koyali (Gujarat), Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) and Panipat (Haryana). Of the 1870 KM pipeline an order of approximately 821 KM pipeline between Salaya and Mathura was placed to M/s PSL Limited to supply Coated Mainline Pipes vide its Letter of Intent dated April 10, 2012.
3. The revisionist M/s. PSL Limited, acting through accused No.2 Shri Ashok Punj, represented that they have received an order worth Rs.570 Crores (Rupees Five Hundred Seventy Crores) from Indian Oil Corporation for supply of Coated Mainline Pipes for Salya- Mathura Pipeline Debottlenecking Project (hereinafter referred as "the Project").
4. The Revisionist M/s. PSL Limited for the purpose of executing the Project had approached Standard Chartered Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi for availing the financial assistance vide "Syndicated 3 Secured Working Capital Loan Facility". A facility agreement dated April 27, 2012 was entered into between M/s PSL Limited and Standard Chartered Bank at the office of the said bank at 23, Narain Manzil, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 which was the then existing lender. A Memorandum of Charge dated April 27, 2012 with respect to receivables from IOCL was also executed by M/S PSL Limited in favour of M/s IDBI Trusteeship Service Limited.
5. The Revisionist M/s. PSL Limited thereafter through Standard Chartered Bank had approached consortium of financiers including Federal Bank, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait, Tata Capital Financial Service Ltd and the Complainant M/s. Aditya Birla Finance Limited for availing the financial assistance for "Syndicated Secured Working Capital Loan Facility.
6. A Novation Agreement dated May 31, 2012 was entered between M/s. PSL Limited, Respondent No.2/Complainant M/s. Aditya Birla Finance Limited, Standard Chartered Bank and IDBI Trusteeship Service Limited (who were acting as Security Trustee). The respondent no.2 M/s. Aditya Birla Finance Limited had disbursed Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crore Only) for a period of 14 months to M/s. PSL Limited and the same was credited to the Designated Account bearing number 22105034068 in the name of 4 'PSL Ltd -IOCL-SMPL Debottlenecking Project with a branch of Standard Chartered Bank at Crescenzo, C-38/39, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (East) Mumbai-400051. The said amount was to be returned to M/s. Aditya Birla Finance Limited at New Delhi latest by June 30, 2013 together with contractual rate of interest. Accused S.P. Bhatia and accused M.M. Mathur executed the said Novation Agreement dated May 31, 2012 on behalf of M/s. PSL Limited.
7. The Respondent No.2/Complainant M/s. Aditya Birla Finance Limited along with consortium of following five financial institutions had sanctioned and disbursed credit facilities (Syndicated Secured Working Capital Loan Facility) by way of novation to M/s. PSL Limited for the Project to the tune of INR 4,310,000,000/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Thirty One Crores Only) details of which are as follows (Credit Facility):
Lender Participation
(in Rs.)
Standard Chartered Bank 1,500,000,000
Federal Bank 1,000,000,000
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank 440,000,000
Bank of Bahrain and Kuwait 470,000,000
Aditya Birla Finance Limited 500,000,000
Tata Capital Financial Service 400,000,000
Ltd
Total Amt. 4,310,000,000
8. The accused Persons specifically agreed, in terms of the agreement, 5 that all payments released by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) shall be deposited in the Designated Account. Pursuant to this a written communication vide letter dated April 30, 2012 with instructions to deposit the payments of invoices raised by M/s. PSL Limited was issued to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) by M/s. PSL Limited. Further the Complainant M/s. Aditya Birla Finance Limited vide letter dated December 1, 2012 has issued a similar instruction to IOCL.
9. The Revisionist M/s PSL Limited informed that they had already purchased the raw material from the suppliers and submitted a certificate dated May 16, 2012 from its Chartered Accountant Mr. M. Devrajan, stating that M/s. PSL Limited has already spent an amount of Rs. 227.54 Crores on the project including Rs.218.66 Crores on raw material and transportation. Based on the representation of the officials of M/s.PSL Ltd and as per the Sanction Letter dated May 23, 2012, the Complainant M/s. Aditya Birla Financial Limited disbursed the sanctioned amount in the Designated Account.
10.The Revisionist M/s. PSL Limited has also availed credit facilities from various lenders including ICICI Bank, State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Canara Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Union Bank of India, Kotak Mahindra Bank, DBS Bank, Federal Bank, IDBI, ING Vysa Bank, Yes Bank, Axis Bank in excess of 4000 Crores purportedly on 6 the basis of various purchase orders. During the month of December, 2012 - January, 2013, the complainant started receiving communications from the lenders in respect of the defaults committed by revisionist M/s PSL Limited.
11.The complaint was informed by State Bank of India that the M/s. PSL Limited has approached Corporate Debt Restructuring (CDR) cell for restructuring its facilities availed from various Banks and FII's. Accordingly, on January 30, 2013, a meeting of all the lenders was conveyed. 21 Banks and Financial institutions including complainant attended the said meeting. M/s PSL Limited also attended the meeting and was represented by accused No.2 Mr. Ashok Punj, the Managing Director. During the said meeting it was revealed that M/s PSL Limited has borrowed, almost Rs.4037 Crores in the form of working capital from various Banks and FII's based on various Project Orders. Banks raised serious concerns over the cash flows i.e Project Receivables not being routed through Designated Account (s). After realizing the approach of the company, the complainant decided not to participate in the CDR of revisionist M/s PSL Limited.
12.It was decided at the meeting of February 28, 2013 amongst the lenders, i.e. respondent No.2/complainant M/s. Aditya Birla Financial Limited, Bank of Bahrain, Federal Bank, Abu Dhabi Commercial 7 Bank, Tata Capital and Standard Chartered Bank who have financed the Project, to appoint M/s Shah Jalan & Company (hereinafter referred as "the Firm") as Lenders' Representative. The Firm in course of their investigation revealed startling facts. As per the report submitted by the Firm it is revealed that as on June 1, 2013 revisionist M/s. PSL Limited has dispatched and billed IOCL for the supply of material for an amount of Rs.273 crores as against the contract value of Rs. 570 Crores. revisionist M/s PSL Limited has received Rs.257 crores as on June 6, 2013 excluding the retention amount of 5% and withholding taxes. On the contrary the statement of the Designated Account revealed that only an amount of Rs. 152 crores has been deposited. The balance amount of about Rs.105 crores was not credited to the Designated Account and hence in connivance with IOCL officials accused persons have siphoned off the said money.
13.The respondent No.2/complaint also got to know that the Statement of Stock and Consumables Report submitted by revisionist M/s. PSL Limited as on January 15, 2013 duly signed by its accused No.2 Managing Director is false and fabricated. As per the said statement certified by accused Ashok Punj, the total stock for the Project was Rs. 443.58 Crores whereas during the period January 15, 2013 to June 15, 2013 revisionist M/s. PSL Limited has raised total bills of 8 Rs.113.68 crores on IOCL. Hence total values of the stocks/ finished goods or unbilled goods should be around Rs.329.90 crores as on June 16, 2013. The Firm vide its report submitted that the value of stock/finished goods as on June 16, 2013 was only to the extent of Rs. 69.01 crores thus leaving an unexplained gap of Rs.260.90 crores. Hence it is clear that revisionist M/s PSL Limited has been submitting false and fabricated certificates with an intention to cheat defraud and mislead the lenders.
14.The respondent No.2/complainant have time and again requested revisionist M/s PSL Limited and its officials in writing to reveal and disclose the true facts and sought clarification on various issues, but the same were not replied. Subsequently, the complainant recalled the entire facility vide letter dated June 19, 2013 due to non-payment, malafide intent to cheat, defraud and mislead the lenders. The same was also communicated to all lenders vide letter dated June 26, 2013. The Revisionist M/s. PSL Limited vide its letter dated June 21, 2013 admitted that collection against the invoices raised on IOCL were received by it directly and not into the Designated Account as per tacit agreement with the lenders in view of short disbursals of facilities. The knowledge of any tacit agreement has been vehemently denied by all the lenders in writing and the same has been clearly communicated to revisionist PSL Limited. Further accused persons 9 have not reverted on the same.
15.On these grounds respondent no.2 alleged that revisionist M/s. PSL Limited, its Managing Director, Directors and various officials of Indian Oil Corporation including the above named persons have connived with each other and cheated and defrauded the respondent no.2 / complainant and have siphoned of Rs.105 Crore. Accused persons, without consent of the lenders, and in violation of the legal contract, have diverted and siphoned off approximately Rs.105 Crore to another account of M/s PSL Limited with Indian Bank, Mumbai and the said huge amount has been criminally misappropriated by the accused persons. Respondent no.2 has also alleged that this is not possible without an understanding and conspiracy with the officials of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in order to defraud the respondent no.2/ complainant and other financial institutions. It is apparent that the criminally misappropriated money was diverted and not utilized for the Project by revisionist as per the terms of the agreement with the complainant. Hence the accused persons have fraudulently diverted/siphoned huge amount, approximately of Rs.105 crores, in violation of the legal contract i.e. facility agreement dated April 27, 2012 and subsequent Novation Agreement dated May 31, 2012 and furnished false and forged statement of stock and consumables. The officers of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in 10 conspiracy with revisionist and other accused persons have breached the instruction of crediting the funds only to the designated account and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy assisted revisionist and other accused persons in diverting the funds by not crediting to the Designated Account. The respondent No.2/complainant submitted that it appears that all the above accused persons was apparently hand in glove with an intention to commit criminal breach of trust in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy have caused wrongful loss of approximately Rs.105 Crore to the respondent no.2 / complainant and wrongful gain to themselves. Above named persons with a common dishonest intention have entered into a criminal conspiracy to cause illegal loss to ABFL.
16.Ld. Trial Court after taking into consideration all the material facts and after hearing arguments on the application 156 (3) Cr. P.C. passed the impugned order dated 04.06.2014 as follows:-
"Present: Counsel for complainant along with AR of the complainant.
Further arguments on application u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C. heard.
I have perused the complaint and various documents annexed with the complaint. I have carefully gone through agreement dated 27.04.2012 executed between M/s PSL Ltd. And Standard Chartered Bank, Novation Agreement dated 31.05.2012 executed between M/s PSL Ltd., complainant company and Standard Chatered Bank etc. I have also gone through letter dated 30.04.2012 as well as 01.12.2012 issued to IOCL.
The complaint prima facie discloses commission of 11 cognizable offences and requires a detailed / through investigation. Accordingly, applicaton u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC is allowed. DCP, EOW is directed to register the FIR and investigate the matter accordingly. Report of the investigation be sent to the court on or before 01.08.2014. Renotify the matter now on 01.08.2014."
17.Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dt. 04.06.2014, the revisionist filed the present revision petition for setting aside the impugned order passed by Ld. ACMM.
18.During the course of arguments Ld. counsel for revisionist argued and submitted that the present revision is preferred against the order dated 04.06.2014, passed by Ld Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, in the matter bearing C.C. No.9/4/14 titled as M/s Aditya Birla Finance Ltd V/s M/s PSL Ltd. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent no.2 in their written arguments filed before this Hon'ble Court has raised two preliminary issues in respect of MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION PETITION & LIMITATION. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondents has raised objection to the maintainability of the revision petition as the impugned order passed by the Ld. ACMM is an interlocutory order against which revision is not maintainable. The respondent have relied upon the full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which has held that:
"the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is not amenable to revision by the proposed accused." 12
19.It is submitted by the ld. Cunsel for the revisionist that the Delhi High Court in the case of "Manohar Singh & Anr." Reported in 2014(2) JCC 1037 has held that:
"an Order under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a revisable order."
20.In the said judgment reference has also been made to a Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment and has also considered the the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court relied upon by the respondent No.2. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Delhi High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court the contention of the respondent is misconceived and the present revision is maintainable.
21.Ld. counsel for the revisionist again submitted that the respondents have also objected to the present revision petition on the ground that it is beyond limitation therefore, not maintainable. In this regard, ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the proceedings before the Court of Ld. ACMM were held ex-parte and the revisionist had no knowledge of the same since no process was issued by the Ld. ACMM or the police even in the course of prelimanary inquiry. The impugned order has also been passed ex-parte of which the revisionist had no knowledge. The revisionist came to know about the complaint filed by the Aditya Birla Finance Limited before the Ld. 13 ACMM only on 6th January, 2015 when a Notice from Economic Offences Wing was served upon the Managing Director of the revisionist. Copy of the said Notice of EOW is marked as Annexure-H (page 93) of the Revision Petition. The ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the case of "Rajesh Garg Versus Tata Tea Ltd. and Another" in 2011(3) JCC 1892 it has been held that:
"the limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge of an order."
22.The revisionist filed the present revision petition on 7 th of March, 2015 which is within the prescribed time limit. However, as an abundant caution the revisionist has also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
23.Ld. counsel for the revisionist further argued and submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld. ACMM is cryptic and non-speaking order. The order passed by the Ld. ACMM does not disclose application of mind and consideration of relevant material. Before passing the impugned order the Ld. ACMM had the report of the EOW, Delhi Police to the effect that the complaint is in relation to a civil dispute since the averments of the complaint reveal a breach of contract between the complainant and the accused. In the case of Anil Kumar Vs. N. K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
14
"an order of the Magistrate directing investigation under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. should disclose what weighed in the mind of Magistrate to order investigation. ............the application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order....."
24.Ld. counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the present case the Ld. ACMM has not disclosed as to what weighed in his mind while directing registration of an FIR and investigation, particularly when the report of the EOW, Delhi Police clearly mentioned that after preliminary inquiry into the complaint of the complainant it came to the conclusion that the facts disclosed in the complaint raised a civil dispute, moreover the Ld. Trial Court has not even considered the Action taken. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Wolfgang Reim vs. State [2012(3) JCC 2042]
2. Hari Prasad Chamaria vs. Bhushan Kumar Surekha and Ors. (1973)2 SCC 823]
3. Priyanka Srivastva and anr.vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2015 Indlaw SC 226]
1. The non-application of mind by the Ld. ACMM makes the impugned order legally unsustainable and therefore liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist again submitted that the facts narrated in the complaint filed by the complainant (respondent herein) do not ex-facie disclose commission of any cognizable offence and / or the offences stated in the complaint. The allegations 15 that the revisionist has committed offence under Section 406, 409, 420, 469, 471 r/w Section 120B of I.P.C. even remotely cannot be said to have been committed by the revisionist, keeping in view the facts and circumstances as stated in the complaint. Further the revisionist has at no stage made any dishonest or fraudulent representation to the complainant so as to induce the complainant to sanction and disburse a loan amount of Rs.50 Cr. It is admitted by the complainant in paragraph 6 and 7 of the complaint that the revisionist had approached Standard Chartered Bank for availing the financial assistance for the project and a facility agreement dated 27 th April, 2012 was signed between the revisionist and the Standard Chartered Bank. In paragraph 7 it is also admitted that the revisionist had through Standard Chartered Bank approached consortium of financers including the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist again submitted that the revisionist had never directly approached Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. for a loan for the project, but on the contrary it was Standard Chartered Bank which had approached a consortium of five more banks to share the loan amount of Rs.475 Cr. already sanctioned by Standard Chartered Bank on 27.04.2012. Therefore, there was no question of revisionist making any false representation to the respondent no.2 at the time of disbursal of the loan amount.
Dishonest intention at the initial stage is a prerequisite of the offences under 406/409 I.P.C. therefore fraudulent or dishonest intention must 16 be shown at very beginning of the transaction no criminal liability can be fastened. Further in support of his contentions he has relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
1. Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar (2005)10 SCC 336;
2. Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat and Ors (2008)5 SCC 668; and
3. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2000)4 SCC 168
2. Ld. counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent / complainant has concealed material facts in the complaint filed before the Ld. Court of ACMM, New Delhi District. In fact out of a total amount of Rs.22.96 Crores refunded by the revisionist to the respondent Rs.21.43 Cr. was paid back before the date of the complaint. The complainant has not only suppressed this vital factual information in its complaint but on the contrary made a major misrepresentation by giving an impression that stating that he has suffered a loss of Rs.105 Crores (although the total loan advanced by complainant itself was only Rs.50 Crores). Thus the complainant with malafide intentions manipulated and twisted the hard facts in a manner which made the trial court believe that the revisionist has misappropriated a huge amount of Rs.105 Crores.
3. Ld. counsel for the revisionist again submitted that the facts disclosed 17 in the complaint only show breach of a term of an agreement entered between the revisionist and the Complainant / Respondent and the remedies to the same has also been provided for within the agreement. The complainant as a financial institution / lender had advanced loan amount of Rs.50 Crores for commercial gains to the revisionist and accordingly a Novation Agreement was signed between the revisionist, the respondent and Standard Chartered Bank on 31.05.2012. The revisionist, however, could not pay back the entire loan amount due to financial crises / loss suffered by the company and the company had to approach the Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell under the RBI guidelines for restructuring of its debts. The inability of the revisionist to pay the remaining installments of loan does not involve any criminal act and is a mere breach of the contract which is civil in nature. In this regard ld. Counsel for the revisionist submitted that a reference is made to the following clauses of the Facility Letter dated 27.04.2012:
"......Clause 10.3 (III) provides for the "deposit of all receivables of the project in designated account". "The said Facility Agreement also contains Clause 12 "Events of Default" which amongst other includes the following as an event of default."
Clause 12.1.3 "If borrower fails to make payment of any amount due under/ in relation to the facility as and when it becomes due." AND Clause 12.1.11 All or any part of the facility is not utilized for the purpose......."
The facility agreement dated 27th April, 2012 also contains a Clause 12.2 titled 'Consequences of Default' which 18 among other remedies provides for the following:
"......Clause: 12.2
(f) The Lender shall commence legal proceedings to recover such sum, .........."
4. Ld. counsel for the revisionist submitted that as is evident from the above clauses of the facility agreement that if the borrower commits default in repayment of dues or utilizes funds for some other purpose, the Bank / Financial Institution has right to recover the loan amount through legal proceedings. The complainant cannot be permitted to pick up a particular Clause of the Facility Agreement and give it a criminal color. The document has to be read "as a whole" rather than in piecemeal manner. If Clause 10.3(iii) is binding on the parties then clause 12.1.3, 12.1.11 and 12.2 are equally binding on the parties. The agreements provide for remedies for recovery of the outstanding amount and, therefore, the ABFL is under obligation to recover the amount through civil legal action. Resort to criminal action in abuse of process of law. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist again submitted that the criminal complaint is aimed to harass and pressurize the revisionist to make immediate payment of the outstanding dues of the Respondent. The respondent no.2 initially did join the scheme for restructuring of the company's debts, unlike lenders holding approx. 90% of the company's debts, surprisingly approached Corporate Debt Restructuring Cell for joining the subject restructuring so as to eventually recover its outstanding debts through CDR mechanism on 19 10th June, 2014 which is just 6 days after it succeeds in procuring the impugned order from Ld. ACMM on 6 th June, 2014. Thus respondent wants to pursue double remedies for single breach of the revisionist.
5. Ld. counsel for the revisionist again submitted that the facts so stated in the complaint makes allegations as if the directors/ officers of the revisionist company are vicariously responsible for the offences committed by the company. However the complainant has failed to notice that the offences alleged in the complaint are not the ones in which any person could be held vicariously responsible. The offences alleged are the ones which are "personam" in nature and the complainant has not alleged role of any individual accused apart from their designations(s). It is settled law that every cognizable offence does not require directions for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the Ld. Magistrate would also have to give a finding that the allegation so made necessitates a need for investigation by the police and the complainant is not in a position to collect/produce the said material during the course of trial and therefore it necessitate police investigation and complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. or inquiry under section 202 CrPC is not sufficient.
6. Contrary to it, ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 2 argued and submitted that revisionist is one of the accused in case FIR NO. 20 72/2014, U/S: 406/409/420/468/471/120-B IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing pursuant to the directions U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. passed by the Court of Ld. ACMM, New Delhi vide order dated 04.06.2014 has no locus to challenge the order dated 04.06.2014 by way of present Revision Petition. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 again submitted that the law is well settled that a Revision Petition by an accused against an order U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of an FIR is not maintainable. A full bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in its judgment dated 23.09.2014 passed in the case titled "Jagannath Verma & Ors Vs State of U P &Anr" in Criminal Misc Case No 3778 of 2012" has agreed with the earlier decision of full court in "Father Thomas" case that:
"an order U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing registration of an FIR is an interlocutory order and a Revision Petition U/S 397 Cr.P.C. by an accused not maintainable."
7. Ld. counsel for the respondent further submitted that even the order dated 04.06.2014 passed by the Court of Ld. ACMM, New Delhi was complied by the respondent No.1 on 18.07.2014 when the FIR NO. 72/2014, U/S: 406/409/420/468/471/120-B IPC registered at P.S. Economic Offences Wing pursuant to the directions U/S 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Ld. Counsel for the respondent again submitted that even otherwise a Court of Sessions, while exercising revisional powers under section 397 Cr.P.C., cannot quash an FIR and as such the 21 prayer made in the present revision petition is not maintainable. The present Revision Petition challenging the impugned order dated 04.06.2014 has been filed on 07.03.2015 after the expiry of limitation of 90 days as such this petition is not maintainable being barred by Limitation. Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that allegation made in the Complainant/ FIR prima-facie discloses commission of cognizable offences as such this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. On these grounds ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that case is at crucial stage of investigations and incriminating evidence has already been collected by the investigation agency and as such the prayers made in this revision petition are not maintainable and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of ld. Counsel for the revisionists and ld. Counsel for the respondent as well. Perusal of the case file reveals that impugned order dated 04.06.2014 for registration of FIR on the application filed u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC accompanied with a complaint u/s 200 Cr. PC, was passed by the ld. Trial court against company M/s PSL Ltd. and its Ashok Punj- MD, S P Bhatia- Director, M M Mathur-Director, R K Bahri- Director, D N Sehgal- Director, C K Goel- Director, G. Gehani- Company Secy.; M. Venkatesh, Chief Finance Officer and unknown officers of IOC. 22 The main argument of the ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order has been passed by the ld. Trial court without proper application of mind and case is of entirely civil nature. The respondent relied upon the full bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which has held that - "the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is not amenable to revision by the proposed accused." Similarly, Delhi High Court in the case of "Manohar Singh & Anr." Reported in 2014(2) JCC 1037 has held that - "an Order under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. is a revisable order." Apart from this, both the parties regarding maintainability and non maintainability of the revision petition has raised similar contentions and relied upon the citations referred in the preceding paras. In light of these facts and circumstance of the case, to my view the impugned order dated 04.06.2014 is not an interlocutory order but it is intermediate order as it completes one set of process regarding formation of opinion with regard to committal of offences. Therefore, contentions of the respondent that the impugned order is an interlocutory order is neither maintainable nor acceptable at this stage. It is well settled principle of law that this court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the discretionary power of the ld. MM to set over the wisdom of trial court at this stage with regard to determination of facts. The determination of the facts is an exclusive domain of the original court of jurisdiction yet this court has limited jurisdiction to enter the area of discretion of 23 Ld. M.M. on the ground of propriety and correctness. Moreover, various aspect with regard to the agreement entered between the parties subsequent to it the Novation agreement dated May 31, 2012, if any, are matter of consideration during the course of proceedings before ld. MM as no natural person has come before this court as revisionist to get set aside the impugned order and only juridical person i.e. revisionist PSL Ltd. through A.R. Shashi Ranjan has come before this court. Therefore, the element of culpability, to my view cannot be solely attributed to the juridical persons in absence of making any natural person as revisionist. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance to set aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2015 at this stage as element of culpability can only be attributed to the natural person but no natural person has come before this court in this revision petition along with the juristic persons. Hence, revision petition is dismissed. Accordingly, revision petition stands disposed of. Trial Court record, if any, be sent back with an attested copy of the order. Revision petition/ proceedings be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22.07.2015 (RAJ KAPOOR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI 24