Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Lal vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 January, 2025
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40244-2023
Reserved on 13.12.2024
Date of decision: 21.01.2025
Rajiv Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Argued by: Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate,
Ms. Shweta Sinha, Advocate for
Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana.
None for respondent No.2.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summoning order dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure
P-17) passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad in criminal
complaint No.1892 of 2022 titled Rishab Jaini Vs. Rajiv Lal and others.
2. In response to notice of motion, Mr. Ashish Malik, Advocate
appeared on behalf of complainant/respondent No.2 while the State counsel
appeared on behalf of respondent No.1-State. However, subsequently, none put
in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant
presented an application dated 23.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C seeking directions to register an FIR and to investigate the matter. In
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 00:33:31 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [2]
application Annexure P-1, it was alleged that accused No.3 Nidhee Bhatnagar
joined as Executive Assistant in the office of M.K. Petro Products India Limited
on 02.01.2019 and she signed a non disclosure, non solicitation and
confidentiality agreement with the aforesaid company. In the same manner,
accused No.2 Dheeraj Bhatia also joined the said company as a Manager on
18.01.2019 and he also executed similar type of agreement with the aforesaid
company. On 27.01.2022, Nidhee Bhatnagar was caught red handed while she
was leaking the confidential information and trade formulas of the company to
petitioner/accused No.1. Nidhee Bhatnagar confessed her guilt and signed her
resignation. Even Dheeraj Bhatia who was also involved in similar type of
activities, submitted his resignation on 23.02.2022. That on 30.04.2022 at about
6 PM, complainant and his wife Kirti Verma were going towards their house
from the office situated in Ballabhgarh. There car was intercepted by petitioner-
Rajiv Lal and accused No.2 Dheeraj Bhatia and they started abusing
complainant and his wife. The said accused forcibly took the complainant out of
his car and started kicking and slapping him and also extended threats to the
complainant. A complaint dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) was lodged in
Police Station Sadar Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad with regard to aforesaid
incident of assault. However, the police failed to take any action against the
accused persons. Hence, application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C was presented
in the Court of area Magistrate concerned. The said Court called for action taken
report from the concerned SHO. The action taken report Annexure P-5 was
received and thereafter, the Court concerned declined to send the matter to the
police for registration of FIR. However, liberty was granted to the complainant
to pursue the said application as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
After recording of the preliminary evidence, the learned trial Court passed
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [3]
summoning order dated 12.01.2023 Annexure P-17 vide which petitioner and
Dheeraj Bhatia are directed to be summoned for commission of offences under
Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, while the complaint was dismissed
in toto qua accused No.3-Nidhee Bhatnagar and was also dismissed qua
petitioner and Dheeraj Bhatia regarding commission of offences under Sections
406, 409 read with Section 34 IPC.
4. The counsel for the petitioner has inter alia submitted that all the
allegations made in the complaint Annexure P-1 are totally false. That trial
Court disbelieved the allegations made by the complainant with regard to theft
of data belonging to M.K. Petro Products India Private Limited, against all the
three accused persons. It has been further submitted that actually, petitioner and
Sudhir Kumar Jaini father of respondent No.2/complainant were directors of
M/s Divine Thermal Wrap Private Limited and they executed Memorandum of
Understanding (in short ‘MOU’) dated 15.12.2021 Annexure P-11 whereby
Sudhir Kumar Jaini agreed to sell his entire shares in aforesaid company in
favour of petitioner. On the basis of said MOU, the total due amount of
aforesaid shares was paid by the petitioner to Sudhir Kumar Jaini but Sudhir
Kumar Jaini was reluctant to transfer his shares in favour of the petitioner. The
counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in order to pressurize, the
petitioner not to act upon aforesaid MOU and to wreak vengeance, complainant
being son of Sudhir Kumar Jaini concocted alleged incident of assault dated
30.04.2022 and lodged false complaint Annexure P-1 with the area Magistrate
concerned. It has been further submitted that there is delay in lodging of said
complaint and further in the earlier complaint Annexure P-2 dated 21.05.2022
lodged with the police, there was no mention of any such incident dated
30.04.2022. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that summoning order
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [4]
Annexure P-17 was passed by the trial Court on the basis of statements of
complainant and his wife without having any independent corroboration in the
form of medical evidence. It has been further submitted that even the status
report Annexure P-5 submitted by concerned SHO is also not taken into
consideration by the trial Court while passing the impugned order. That as per
the said status report, the complainant failed to present any evidence against the
accused persons, before the police. It has been further submitted that the
summoning order Annexure P-17 was passed by the learned trial Court in a
mechanical manner without application of mind and thus, is not legally tenable.
In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar Goyal and
others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2019) 14 SCC 318 wherein a
criminal complaint alleging betrayal and cheating relating to shares of company,
filed as a counter blast to wreak vengeance, by complainant therein against his
family for disowning him, was quashed.
5. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State has
submitted that the impugned summoning order is passed by the trial Court in a
private criminal complaint lodged by respondent No.2 against petitioner and one
another person. That the State has nothing to do with the said private criminal
complaint, as the lis is between two private parties.
6. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioner and the State counsel.
7. It is the duty of the High Court, when its jurisdiction under Section
482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution is invoked on the ground that the
complaint is manifestly frivolous, vexatious or instituted with ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, to examine the allegations with care and caution.
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [5]
8. In the instant case, complainant/respondent No.2 filed criminal
complaint Annexure P-1, under Section 506, 323, 406, 409, 426 and 34 IPC
against petitioner, Dheeraj Bhatia and Nidhee Bhatnagar wherein petitioner and
Dheeraj Bhatia are summoned by the learned trial Court to face trial under
Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC vide order dated 12.01.2023
Annexure P-17, while the criminal complaint against Nidhee Bhatnagar was
dismissed in toto and the complaint was also dismissed under Sections 406, 409
and 426 IPC against petitioner and Dheeraj Bhatia. Admittedly, complainant has
not challenged the order Annexure P-17 to the extent the complaint was
dismissed against petitioner, Dheeraj Bhatia and Nidhee Bhatnagar. In the given
circumstances, this Court is not going to examine the allegations made by
complainant/respondent No.2 in complaint Annexure P-1 against petitioner,
Dheeraj Bhatia and Nidhee Bhatnagar with regard to leakage of the confidential
information and trade formulas and theft of data of the company run by the
complainant/respondent No.2.
9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that petitioner and
Dheeraj Bhatia are summoned under Section 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC
on the basis of allegations made by the complainant/respondent No.2 in his
complaint Annexure P-1 to the effect that on 30.04.2022 at about 6 PM, the
aforesaid two accused intercepted the car of complainant wherein his wife Kirti
Verma was also traveling with him and then both the said accused started
abusing the complaint and his wife and they forcibly pulled out the complainant
and started kicking and slapping the complainant and also extended threats to
him.
10. Complainant himself appeared in the witness box as CW-1 and
also examined his wife Kirti Verma as CW-2 and closed his preliminary
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [6]
evidence and thereafter, the learned trial Court passed impugned order
Annexure P-17 against the petitioner and Dheeraj Bhatia. Undoubtedly, no
medical record was produced by the complainant to corroborate the alleged
incident of assault dated 30.04.2022.
11. As per the allegations made in complaint Annexure P-1, it appears
that with regard to incident dated 30.04.2022, the complainant lodged one
complaint dated 21.05.2022 Annexure P-2, with the police authorities of Police
Station Sadar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad. Admittedly, the said complaint was
given to the police by the complainant after about three weeks of the aforesaid
incident dated 30.04.2022 without any explanation with regard to said delay.
After going through police complaint Annexure P-2, it is evident that the said
complaint is totally silent with regard to incident of assault dated 30.04.2022. In
the said complaint Annexure P-2 only allegations made were with regard to
leakage of the confidential information and trade formulas and theft of data of
the company run by the complainant/respondent No.2. The mentioning of
incident of assault dated 30.04.2022 in subsequent criminal complaint Annexure
P-1 dated 23.06.2022, which the complainant could have disclosed to the police
at the time of lodging of police complaint dated 21.05.2022 Annexure P-2,
would raise doubt about the said incident of assault, as it indicates an
afterthought.
12. Further, it has been brought on record by the counsel for petitioner
that Sudhir Kumar Jaini father of complainant/respondent No.2 and present
petitioner were directors of M/s Divine Thermal Wrap Limited and they
executed MOU dated 15.12.2021 Annexure P-11, wherein petitioner was
depicted as RLNL and Sudhir Kumar Jaini was depicted as SKNJ and Divine
Thermal Wrap Private Limited through its directors Nibha Lal and the petitioner
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [7]
was depicted as DTWPL. As per said MOU, SKNJ decided to part way with the
existing arrangements and offered to sell its entire stake in DTWPL at a
negotiated price of Rs.1/- per share aggregating to Rs.15 lacs as per valuation
and it was agreed that RLNL shall acquire entire share holding of SKNJ to have
full control i.e. 100% stake in DTWPL and it was further agreed that RLNL and
SKNJ shall execute a share purchase agreement within 60 days of signing of the
said MOU or any period extended with mutual consent. Father of the
complainant namely Sudhir Kumar Jaini submitted his resignation from the post
of director vide letter dated 15.12.2021 and the resignation appears to be
accepted on the same very day. The counsel for the petitioner has also brought
to the notice of this Court that subsequently, Sudhir Kumar Jaini failed to
comply with the terms and conditions of MOU and then M/s Divine Thermal
Wrap Private Limited, Nibha Lal and present petitioner being directors filed
application (Annexure P-13) under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996
against Sudhir Kumar Jaini and his wife, on 12.03.2022 and the opposite party
filed its reply Annexure P-14 wherein execution of MOU was admitted,
however, it was alleged that the default is on the part of the petitioner and other
directors of Divine Thermal Wrap Limited. From the perusal of Annexure P-16,
it appears that Sudhir Kumar Jaini and his wife also approached the National
Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (in short ‘NCLT’) and filed petition under
Sections 241, 242 and 244 of the Companies Act against the present petitioner
and Divine Thermal Wrap Private Limited and its other director. Counsel for the
petitioner also referred to order dated 07.12.2023 passed by NCLT and the same
was taken on record, As per said order dated 07.12.2023, the petition was closed
as Sudhir Kumar Jaini gave undertaking that he would not interfere with the
affairs of M/s Divine Thermal Wrap Private Limited.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:008399
CRM-M-40244-2023 [8]
13. In light of the afore-discussed facts and circumstances of the case
coupled with the fact that the complaint/respondent No.2 who is son of Sudhir
Kumar Jaini who is having dispute with the petitioner with regard to transfer of
shares of M/s Divine Thermal Wrap Private Limited and further the complaint
Annexure P-2 was lodged with the police after delay of about 21 days of the
alleged incident of assault and furthermore, in the said complaint there is no
mention with regard to incident of assault dated 30.04.2022, it could be easily
inferred that complaint Annexure P-1 with regard to incident of assault dated
30.04.2022 is manifestly attended with malafide and is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the petitioner and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
14. In the light of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Suresh Kumar Goel’s case (supra) the criminal proceeding initiated on the
basis of criminal complaint Annexure P-1 is an abuse of the process of Court
and is requires to be quashed.
15. The present petition is allowed and summoning order dated
13.01.2023 Annexure P-17 is hereby quashed qua the petitioner.
21.01.2025 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
YOGESH JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 24-01-2025 00:33:32 :::
[ad_1]
Source link