Delhi High Court - Orders
Pankaj Oswal vs State Of The Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 May, 2022
Author: Yogesh Khanna
Bench: Yogesh Khanna
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1600/2021, CRL.M.A. 20242/2021
PANKAJ OSWAL
..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Pinky Anand & Mr.N.Hariharan,
Senior Advocates with Ms.Kamlesh
Aggarwal, Mr.Raghav Sabharwal,
Mr.Kshitij Parashar, Mr.Raunak
Singh, Mr.Soham Goswami,
Mr.Prateek Bhalla, Ms.Saudamini
Sharma, Mr.Shantanu Raj, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP for State with
SI Varun Chechi, PS Barakhamba
Road.
Mr.Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate
with Mr.Bharat Arora, Ms.Raavi
Sharma, Advocates for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA
ORDER
% 25.05.2022
1. This petition is filed for quashing of FIR No.54/2016 under Sections 323/380/452/34 IPC registered at PS Barakhamba Road, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no case under any of the Sections stated in the FIR is made out against the petitioner herein. It is stated the main dispute is qua inheritance rights over the assets left over by the father of the petitioner/Pankaj Oswal. It is stated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.05.2022 11:01 the petitioner were residing abroad and when his father late Sh.Abhey Kumar Oswal, expired on 29.03.2016, the petitioner returned to India to perform the last rights on 31.03.2016 and on 04.04.2016 the petitioner went in the office of M/s.Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. And M/s.Oswal Greentech Ltd. to inspect the personal files of his father and took few files with them. However nothing happened on that day but on the very next day i.e., on 05.04.2016 they came to know about the present FIR. He referred to an order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court wherein the learned Trial Court after examining the statement of the witnesses so recorded, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
3. Even otherwise, it is submitted the petitioner is a shareholder of the companies and is entitled to inspection per Section 94(2) of Companies Act and the present FIR is wrongly registered.
4. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondent argued already a petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR has since been withdrawn by the petitioner and the petition of co-accused has since been dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2019 in CRL.M.C.807/2018 and this petition also deserve dismissal. Further he argued the FIR in the present case was registered in the year 2016; chargesheet was filed on 10.08.2016; cognizance was taken on 20.07.2018 but this petition was filed in the year 2021, hence, there is a delay in filing the petition.
5. However the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to Joseph Selvaraj A.vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 7SCC 69 which held as under:
"16. Thus, from the general conspectus of the various sections under which the Appellant is being charged and is to be prosecuted would show that the same are not made out even prima facie from the Complainant's FIR. Even if the charge sheet had been filed, the learned Single Judge could have still examined whether the offences alleged to have been Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.05.2022 11:01 committed by the Appellant were prima facie made out from the complainant's FIR, charge sheet, documents etc. or not."
6. Issue notice. The learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 are present and accepts notice. Let the status report be filed by the State and reply be filed by the respondent no.2 within four weeks from today with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. List on 28.07.2022.
YOGESH KHANNA, J.
MAY 25, 2022 DU Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Date:26.05.2022 11:01