Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Infrastructure Development in M/S Blue Coast Infrastructure ... vs Rajiv Vaswani on 31 July, 2017Matching Fragments
1. The present Revision Petition filed under section 397 of Cr.P.C., is directed against the impugned order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the court of Ms. Niharika Kumar, Ld. MM (N.I. Act)04, South, CIS Criminal Revision No. 145/17. Page No. 1 of 13 "Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Vaswani"
Saket, New Delhi, by which the application u/s 210 of Cr.P.C. seeking stay on the proceedings of the complaint filed u/s 138 of NI Act was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present Revision are briefly discussed as under:
3. The Respondent has filed a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act against the petitioner and others stating that the petitioner has portrayed a very deceiving picture with regard to their proposed project, namely, "Asset Area 3", situated at Delhi International Airport, Delhi. On seeing the offer given by the petitioner, the complainant decided to invest his hard earned money and accordingly, Assured Return agreement and Space Agreement dated 27.05.2011 were executed between the complainant and the petitioner. The Silver Resort Hotel India Pvt. Ltd. signed the said agreement as a confirming party. The complainant had paid substantial consideration, i.e, Rs.81,72,000/ at the time of execution of both the contracts. As per the terms and conditions, the project was to be completed on or before 1st of April, 2014. The construction was not completed and in fact not even commenced by the accused no.1. A cheque bearing no. 632413 dated 31.12.2014 for Rs.2,63,32,000/ was issued and the accused no. 2 assured and represented to the complainant, inter alia, other investors that the construction for entire project will be commenced on or before CIS Criminal Revision No. 145/17. Page No. 2 of 13 "Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Vaswani"
5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has challenged the same by way of present revision petition on the grounds that the Ld. MM has passed the impugned order in violation of section 210 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Ld. MM has wrongly relied upon the judgment CIS Criminal Revision No. 145/17. Page No. 3 of 13 "Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Vaswani"
titled as "Peter Methew vs. Betty John" and has ignored the various other judgments. The Ld. MM should have waited the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court before proceeding in the matter in terms of the judgment titled as "Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar". The impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India and section 300 (1) of Cr.P.C. The Ld. MM has not considered the facts and circumstances of the police case and complaint case, which are related to the same transaction. Ld. MM failed to appreciate that the witnesses, documents and other material available on record in both the complaint case u/s 138 of NI Act and the FIR are quite similar. The Ld. MM failed to consider that the cheques given by the petitioner which are subject matter of the complaint u/s 138 NI Act are also the subject matter of the FIR No.163/15 and it is also contended that it was mandatory provision of law that where there is an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to an offence, which is a subject matter of the trial being held by the Magistrate, the Magistrate shall stay the proceeding of such inquiry or trial or call for the report on the matter from the police conducting the investigation.
6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the Revisionist and the Respondents and perused the records of the trial court carefully.
CIS Criminal Revision No. 145/17. Page No. 4 of 13 "Blue Coast Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Vaswani"
7. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) "State vs. Har Narain", 1976, Cri.L.J. 562.