IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CR. W.P. NO.

____OF 2010 (Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India)

IN THE MATTER OF:-

SUMEET SURI S/O SH. SWARAJ SURI R/O, D-929, NEW FRIENDS COLONY NEW DELHI PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. STATE THROUGH STANDING COUNSEL (Crl.) DELHI HIGH COURT NEW DELHI. 2. MR. ANILJIT SINGH S/O LATE SH. MOHANJIT SINGH R/O, 11, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003 RESPONDENTS

A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 CR.P.C. FOR QUASHING OF F.I.R. No. 125 dated 16.08.2010 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B EMANATING THEREFROM. I.P.C. AND ANY PROCEEDINGS

Most Respectfully Showeth:

1.

That this is the first writ petition on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, before this Honble Court for quashing of the F.I.R. No. 125 dated 16.08.2010 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C.

2.

That the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C. in FIR No. 125 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing for ulterior purpose by the Respondent No.2. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. would reveal that the entire allegations purported against the Petitioner are concocted and an afterthought to extort money from the Petitioner.

3.

In the month of ______, 2005, the Respondent No. 2 approached the Petitioner to incorporate a company to carry out and undertake the business of manufacturing and sale of garments in the domestic and international market. Pursuant thereto, a company in the name of M/s Ivory Clothing Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) was incorporated under the provisions of the Company Act 1956, in which the Petitioner had 30% shareholding and the Respondent No. 3 had 70% shareholding. It was agreed between the Parties that they will bring in plant and machinery from their earlier companies for establishment of this new venture. The Company leased out a premises bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida to start its business. Most of the employees in the new organization were from the Respondent No. 2 previous establishment.

4.

However, since the project, as planned, did not materialize and, as the export market was affected due to recession, losses were building up and the Respondent No. 2 could not bring in business as assured earlier, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 mutually decided to part ways after settlement of accounts with effect from 15.01.2008. It was agreed between the Parties that the Petitioner can continue working from the premises bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida under his own company Anjjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd for fabrication and holding of stocks.

5.

Thereafter,

on

28.04.2008,

the

Petitioner

tendered

his

resignation

as a Director of the Company, which was duly accepted by the Company.

6.

In the second week of August 2008, the Respondent No. 2 did not allow the Petitioner to enter the premises bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida and threatened the Petitioner to pay a sum of 130.00 lacs towards losses and recovery of debt of the Company from the market. The Respondent No.2 informed the Petitioner that the amount of Rs 130.00 lacs is on the basis of an auditchecking done by the Respondent No. 2. However, the audit report was never showed to the Petitioner. Further, the Respondent No. 2 did not even allowed the Petitioner to remove his personal stock of M/s Ajjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd lying at the premises bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida. It is pertinent to note herein that at this point of time the value of the stock of M/s Ajjane Clothing Company Pvt. Ltd. was somewhere around 80 lacs.

7.

The Petitioner left with no other option agreed to the unreasonable demand of the Respondent No.2 and on 29.08.2008, the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.08.2008 (hereinafter referred to as MOU) and settled their differences in terms of the MOU. In terms of the MOU dated 29.08.2008, it was mutually agreed that it shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner to recover/ deposit a sum of Rs 130.00 Lacs for the Company in the manner as prescribed in the MOU dated 29.08.2008. Copy of the MOU dated 29.08.2008 is annexed herewith and marked Petitioner as in Annexure terms of 1. the It is MOU pertinent dated to mention herein that the

29.08.2008

recovered/

deposited

a sum of Rs 130.00 Lacs for the Company. Receipts evidencing deposit of monies is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 2. It is pertinent to note herein that at the time of executing the Memorandum of Understanding dated 29th August 2008 each and every aspect related to accounts and/or operation of the Company was discussed with the Respondent No. 3 and only after the satisfaction of the Respondent No. 2 the aforesaid Memorandum of Understanding was executed. Pursuant to the execution of the MOU, the Petitioner had performed his part of the obligation under the MOU. Even the Respondent partially performed his part of the obligations by allowing the Petitioner to remove his stock lying at the premises of the Company bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida. The

Respondent No. 2 failed to handover the books of accounts/ records of the company of the Petitioner M/s Anjjane Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. till date as agreed between the Parties. It is submitted that the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs 130.00 lacs solely to take possession of his stock and to meet the orders of his customers. In case the Petitioner would have missed the dead line to deliver the merchandise to his customers on time, the Petitioner would have been out of the market business and his reputation in the local and international market would have been ruined.

8.

In

terms

of

the

MOU

dated

29.08.2008,

it

was

mutually

agreed

between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 that pursuant to receipt of Rs 130.00 Lacs in the manner as prescribed in the MOU dated 29.08.2008, the Petitioner shall not be liable or responsible for settling any liability/debt whatsoever of the Company and/or the Respondent No. 2. The amount was paid in full and final settlement and absolved the Petitioner from any acts, deeds and things done by him during his tenure as Director in the Company.

9.

In the first week of September 2008, The Respondent No. 3 threatened and intimidated the Petitioner over phone that the Petitioner must pay a sum of Rs 3.00 Lacs to the Respondent No. 2, on account of arrears of rent of premises bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida to be paid to the Noida authority, otherwise the Petitioner and his wife has to face dire consequences, if the demand was not fulfilled. The Petitioner tried to explain the Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner has already fulfilled his obligations under the MOU dated 29.08.2008 and recovered/ deposited a sum of Rs 130.00 Lacs with M/s Ivory Clothing Private Limited. The Petitioner is not in a position

to pay a sum of Rs 3.00 Lacs. 10. 11. In the Second week of September 2008, the Respondent No. 2 called up the Petitioner and asked the Petitioner to settle the amount to be paid in terms of his earlier

conversation. The Respondent No. 2 asked the Petitioner, as to whether the Petitioner was prepared to pay the amount demanded or not. The Petitioner expressed his inability to pay the demanded sum. The Respondent No. 2 got furious and threatened the Petitioner with life and told the Petitioner that in case a sum of Rs 3.00 lacs is not paid within 3 days, the Petitioner and his wife will have to face dire consequences. The Petitioner on account of threat of life sent Rs 271501/- vide cheque bearing No. 804038 dated 12.09.2008 payable at Indian Bank through Mr. Kiran Pal (Accountant of the Complainant) to to the Respondent No. 2.

12.

A few days later, The Respondent No. 2 again threatened and intimidated the Petitioner over phone that the Petitioner must pay a sum of Rs 90,000/- to Mr. Aniljit Singh, on account of a pending Income Tax case. The Petitioner on account of threat sent a cheque bearing No. 809282 for a sum of Rs 90,000/- payable at Indian Bank through Mr. Kiran Pal to the Respondent No. 2.

13.

In the last week of June 2009, The Respondent No. 2 called up the Petitioner and threatened to implicate the Petitioner in a false criminal case to settle scores with the Petitioner. The Petitioner on 30.06.2009 lodged a complaint with the Police Station New Friends Colony, Delhi for the same. The complaint dated 30.06.2009 was registered vide D.D. No. 14 B dated 30.06.2009. Copy of the complaint dated 30.06.2009 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure 3.

14.

Despite having settled all matters with the Petitioner by MOU dated29.08.2008, the Respondent No. 2 with ulterior motive after almost a year after receiving the money as stipulated in the MOU filed a false complaint before the Economics Offence Wing (EOW), New Delhi alleging that the alleged losses suffered by the Company was because of the unprofessional conduct of the Petitioner and the Petitioner also manipulated the Company accounts and released several payments from the Company accounts to his personal use. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, EOW registered FIR bearing No. 125 dated 16.08.2010 under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C.

15.

That a bare perusal of the impugned F.I.R. reveals that the Respondent No. 2 admitted execution of the MOU and receiving a sum of Rs 130.00 lacs under the MOU. After having received a sum of Rs 130.00 lacs and to extort more money from the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 had deliberately set the criminal machinery in motion in order to extort money from the Petitioner.

16.

That no case under sections 406/420/467/468/471/120B I.P.C. is made out against the Petitioner as alleged in the complaint and the present criminal prosecution has been initiated with mala fide intentions.

17.

That the present case is a glaring example of misuse of state machinery and as such the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed.

18.

That assuming but not admitting the dispute in hand appears to be of a civil nature and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner is bad unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed.

19.

That the petitioner has no other alternative and efficacious remedy except to invoke this extraordinary Jurisdiction of this Honble Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. No. 125 dated 16.08.2010 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C. on the following amongst others:

GROUNDS

(i)

BECAUSE pursuant to the execution the matter was settled and in terms of the settlement/ MOU dated 29.08.2008, the Petitioner has paid a sum of Rs 130 lacs to the Respondent No. 2 in full and final settlement and acting to his deterrent given up all his claims against the Respondent No. 2. Hence, the Petitioner is being prejudice

twice by the present malicious proceeding which is even otherwise an abuse of the process of law. absolved the Petitioner from any acts, deeds and things done by him during his tenure as Director in the Company. (ii) BECAUSE despite having settled all matters with the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 with ulterior motive after almost a year after receiving the money as stipulated in the MOU filed a false complaint before the Economics Offence Wing (EOW), New Delhi. (iii) BECAUSE pursuant to the execution of the MOU, the Petitioner had performed his part of the obligation under the MOU. Even the Respondent partially performed his part of the obligations by allowing the Petitioner to remove his stock lying at the premises of the Company bearing No. D-9, Sector 3, Noida. (iv) BECAUSE the criminal proceeding is maliciously initiated by the Respondent No. 2 and is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. (v) BECAUSE the allegations made in the F.I.R, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any criminal offence or make out a case against the Petitioner. (vi) (vii) BECAUSE the allegations made in the F.I.R are absurd and inherently improbable. BECAUSE no case under section under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C. is made out against the Petitioner and the present criminal prosecution has been initiated with mala fide intentions. (viii) BECAUSE the present case is a glaring example of misuse of state machinery and as such the impugned F.I.R. deserves to be quashed. (ix) That the Petitioner craves for the leave of this Hon'ble Court to add amend/alter any other grounds at the Time of arguments with the permission of this Hon'ble Court.

20.

That the petitioner has not filed any other or similar petition either before this Hon'ble Court or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging therein the impugned F.I.R expect the present petition.

21.

The Petitioner is neither defaulter nor has any criminal antecedents. The Petitioner does not have any previous criminal history and there is no likelihood of his absconding or misusing the relief granted by this Honble Court.

22.

That the Petitioner has no other efficacious remedy expect to approach this Hon'ble High Court by way of the present petition.

23.

That the annexure are the true copies of their respective originals.

PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased: (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the F.I.R. No. 125 dated 16.08.2010 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C. (b) stay the further investigation in FIR No. 125 dated 16.08.2010 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi under sections 406/420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120B I.P.C till the pendency of the present petition; (c) to issue any other writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

PETITIONER

THROUGH (Kapil Arora) UNIVERSAL LEGAL A-2, East of Kailash,

New Delhi-65 Ph: 011-46581691