Orissa High Court
Chiratae Ventures India vs State Of Odisha And Others …. Opposite … on 18 December, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4649 of 2024
Chiratae Ventures India .... Petitioner(s)
Advisors Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru
Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Sambit Sekhar Moharana, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate for the informant
Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Arya Tripathy, Advocate
CRLMC No.4665 of 2024
Kailash Nath .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sayrya Kanta Padhi, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Sambit Sekhar Moharana, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Mr. Buddhadev Routray, Senior Advocate for the Informant
CRLMC No.4659 of 2024
Sudhir Sethi .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Sayrya Kanta Padhi, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Satya Smruti Mohanty, Advocate
Mr. Sambit Sekhar Moharana, Advocate
-versus-
Page 1 of 21
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Senior Advocate for the Informant
along with Mr. Arya Tripathy, Advocate
CRLMC No.4708 of 2024
Sulabh Arya .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Sovan Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Economic Offences Wing, CID- .... Opposite Party(s)
CB, Bhubaneswar
Mr. Udit Ranjan Jena, AGA
Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Senior Advocate for the Informant
along with Mr. Arya Tripathy, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
18.12.2024
Order No.
02. 1. The petitioners in the aforementioned petitions have
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of
the F.I.R. in EOW, Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No.12 of 2024
registered at the instance of the opposite party No.3 for the alleged
commission of offences punishable under Sections
420/467/468/471/506/120-B of the I.P.C.
Page 2 of 21
2. The F.I.R. was registered on 23.09.2024 and investigation
of this case is still in progress. At this stage, the petitioners have
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of
the entire criminal prosecution initiated by one Amarendra Sahu-
opposite party No.3.
The opposite party No.3 has filed the complaint inter alia
alleging that he along with one Jitendra Jagadegv formed a
company in January, 2015, named Nest away Technologies Private
Ltd. by each holding 32% share. Other partners, namely, Smruti
Ranjan Parida and Deepak Dhar have each 18% share holding.
Objective of the Company was to provide online platform for
providing house rental and associated services like making rental
agreements all over India. Shareholding of Amarendra reduced
from 32% to 5% over time. Due to Pandemic situation, the
Company suffered losses. The complainant/opposite party No.3 was
working from home at #329, Royal Lagoon Apartments,
Raghunathpur, Bhubaneswar since April, 2021. At this juncture,
when the Company was running under severe financial distress, the
investors namely, Goldman Sachs Singapore, Tiger Global
Singapore left the board, not to sustain any personal loss or
reputation. Other three partners also left the Company for obvious
reasons, but the complainant continued although there is no
Page 3 of 21
financial gain. Due to his sincere endeavor and dedication, the
Company started surviving and his efforts brought back the
company to viable condition. The investors, Goldman Sachs and
Tiger Global, who had left the board at the distress time, looking at
the rising status of the Company wanted to sell their shares in the
Company and make money out of it. To that effect, they secured a
direct offer to sell their shares on 04.09.2022 at a very low value to
M/s Aurum Proptech Pvt. Ltd. (Aurum) in collusion with Jitendra
Jagdev. The investors had been persuading the complainant and
250+ shareholders, which has been rejected by the complainant. It
is further alleged that Chiratae Ventures representing all investors
induced the complainant to sell away the Company to a 3rd party
and promised to pay an extra 11.72 crores out of their share of sale
proceeds in addition to the money from prevailing shares, which
can be clearly verified through various communications like emails,
Whatsapp messages , phone calls etc. One Sudhir Sethi and one
Kailash Nath, the primary representatives of Chiratae Ventures
represented all the investors. Kailash from Chiratae Ventures
emailed the complainant marking copy to all investors confirming
payment of 11.72 crores upon request in form of formal document
by complainant. Further, the investors said that the payment of
11.72 crores need not be part of the sale document as it was an
Page 4 of 21
understanding between the select investors and the complainant and
does not involve buyer and other shareholders. Believing their
words and keeping in view at their stature, the complainant
innocently agreed and completed all formalities of selling the
Company via emails, phone calls, WhatsApp chat while still
working from residence office at Bhubaneswar and handed over all
the signed documents as shareholder. However, in possession of all
the signed documents, consent forms, the investors, namely, Tiger
Global, Goldman Sachs, Chiratae Ventures, Schroders Adved
denied any promise of 11.72 crores to the complainant and
coercively closed the sale transaction in favour of third-party,
namely, Aurum Prop Tech at consideration of 90 crores on
28.06.2023. Not just cheating, he has also entrusted his signature
page on 06.06.2023 as Director with investors to speed up the sale
closure, but it lost its validity on 19.06.2023 after his resignation.
Subsequently, the investors created forged document to complete
the sale transaction on 28.06.2023 managing to affix the sign page
of the complainant without his knowledge. The investors in
conspiracy with Jitendra Jagdev harassed the complainant by
blocking the bank accounts of the complainant. One Deep Verma of
Tiger Global threatened him to agree and sell the shares and resign
from CEO and MD position. Between September 2022 to June
Page 5 of 21
2023, the investors were secretively maintaining conversations with
buyer through Jitendra Jagdev, and all the investors assured him
that the offer of 11.72 crores confirmed and the complainant should
focus only on closing the sale. Hence, the investors had ill intention
from the beginning and dishonestly induced the complainant to
complete all the work of sale of the Company and sign the sale
document as shareholder and promoter of Company. They tactfully
avoided payment of Rs.11.72 crores to the complainant after the
fraudulent sale of the Company shareholdings. When the
complainant demanded the promised money, they avoided on some
plea or other. All the accused persons in collusion and connivance
with third party buyer M/s. Aurum have managed to sell away the
entire shareholding of the Company by deceiving and cheating the
complainant with a false promise of paying Rs.11.72 crores out of
their share from the sale price of Rs.90 crores. All the accused
persons through collusion, intimidation, criminal conspiracy, and
creation of forged documents, have deliberately cheated and
coercively misappropriated money of Rs.11.72 crores of the
complainant.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Mr. Sidarth Agarwal, Mr.Sidarth Luthra, Mr. S.K. Padhi
for the petitioners conjointly submitted that the
Page 6 of 21
complainant/opposite party No.3 has initiated the present
proceeding with an ulterior motive to extract additional sum of
Rs.11.72 crores from the petitioners and associated companies. He
has employed this arm-twisting method by registering the
absolutely false a case at Bhubaneswar although the entire
transaction according to his own case has taken place elsewhere.
The petitioners by adding the allegation under Section 506 of I.P.C.,
inter alia, stating that the petitioners have threatened him in Orissa
has registered the F.I.R. at Bhubaneswar. However, no part of the
offence has taken place in Orissa, even if the allegation in its
entirety is accepted to be correct.
5. By extensively reading out the complaint, Mr. Agarwal,
learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the allegations leveled in
the impugned F.I.R. is concisely pointing out three accusation
against the petitioners:-
(1) The complaint/opposite party No.3 claims that the
investor had promised him that out of their share of sale
proceeds, they would carve out and provide him an
additional sum of Rs.11.72 crores, over and above his
entitlement. Believing the said promise, he had agreed to
sale his shares. The petitioners have backed out of their
promises after the sale of the company’s shareholdings.
Page 7 of 21
(2) In the sale agreement dated 28.06.2023 (at page-24) hissign paper from other documents has been inserted and used
to complete the transaction. He could not have signed the
documents as admittedly he had already resigned from the
Company on 19.06.2023. He alleged that in the foot of
every pages signed by all the concerned, it is found
mentioned the following sentence:- <This signature page
forms part of the Share Purchase Agreement between
Aurum Proptech Limited, Nestaway Technologies Private
Limited and its shareholders.= However, at page-24 where
his signature is appearing, the said foot note is missing in
the page. Therefore, he complains that apparently the
transaction is fraudulent. Hence, it is obvious that the
document has been forged.
(3) Thirdly, it is alleged that the petitioners alleged to have
threatened the complainant/opposite party No.3 in Orissa.
6. Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel submits that the last
portion of the allegations was obviously designed and made only to
attract the jurisdiction of the Bhubaneswar Police. Mr. Agarwal,
further submits that the complainant unsuccessfully had made
attempts before the judicial and quashi-judicial authorities claiming
the amount, however, he has not made any allegation regarding
Page 8 of 21
forgery being committed by the petitioners or regarding any the
threat being extended by any of the petitioners in any of the earlier
proceedings. Prominently, he has pointed out two earlier
proceedings initiated by the complainant against the petitioners on
same cause:-
(i) The complainant/opposite party No.3 had made a
complaint before SEBI agitating his grievances regarding
the breach of promise to pay his claim of Rs.11.72 crores. In
the said proceeding, nowhere, the opposite party No.3 has
made any allegation of misuse/forgery of documents or had
made any allegation regarding threaten being given by the
petitioners. SEBI after thorough enquiry closed the
complaint, inter alia, concluding that the <dispute is arising
out of a private agreement between the companies and the
intermediaries=.
(ii) Similarly, the opposite party No.3 on 22.11.2023
initiated a proceeding before the National Company Law
Tribunal (for short <NCLT=), Bengaluru Branch under
Sections 241/242 and 244 of the Companies Act, 2013
seeking numerous reliefs against the petitioners and
associates companies. The said proceeding ended up on the
settlement terms.
Page 9 of 21
7. Mr. Agarwal, has taken me to the pleadings before the
NCLT in C.A. No.41 of 2024, wherein the complainant/opposite
party No.3 in paragraph-18 of the application has, inter alia, stated
as under:-
<18. Thereafter, on 28th June 2023, the Share
Purchase Agreement (<SPA=) was executed
between the Respondent No.1, along with
Petitioner and all the other Respondents, whereby
the Respondent No.2 agreed to acquire the entire
shareholding of Respondent No.1, including that
of the Petitioner. Even prior to closing taking
place in terms of the SPA, the Respondent No.2
took over operations of the Respondent No.1 in
connivance with the other Respondents, after
effecting a transfer of just over 50% of the paid-
up share capital of Respondent No.1. A copy of
the SPA dated 28th June 2023 is annexed hereto
and marked as Annexure I.
8. By relying upon the said pleading, he contended that in the
proceeding initiated by the complainant before the NCLT, he has
categorically admitted to have signed the offending document dated
28.06.2023. In the said proceeding, the complainant/opposite party
No.3 has entered into a settlement. A settlement agreement dated
03.06.2024 was signed between the complainant and the accused-
Companies and Associates. The complainant has agreed to settle the
entire dispute by accepting Rs.4,16,24,391.68/-. In the settlement
agreement as well, in paragraph-D the complainant/opposite party
No.3 has agreed as under:-
Page 10 of 21
“D. On the Closing Date,
(a) Amar shall initiate the withdrawal of the
NCLT Petition,
(b) Amar shall initiate the withdrawal of the MCA
Letter,
(c) Amar shall withdraw any other complaints or
actions which are unknown to Nestway and/or
Aurum, and
(d) Nestaway and Aurum shall withdraw any
other complaints or actions which are unknown to
Amar.=(Complainant is referred to as Amar in the
settlement agreement)On the basis of the aforementioned settlements terms, the
NCLT, Bengaluru vide its order dated 06.06.2024 in C.A. No.41 of
2024 closed the proceeding. Relevant would be to reproduce the
order:-
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SPECIAL BENCH, BENGALURU
(Through web-based video conferencing platform)ITEM No.32
C.A. No.41/2024 in
C.P. No.12/BB/2024IN THE MATTER OF
Mr. Amarendra Sahu … Petitioner
Vs.
M/s. Nestaway Technologies Pvt. Ltd., … Respondent
Order under Section 241-242 of Companies Act, 2013
Order delivered on 06.06.2024
CORAM
JUSTICE (RETD.) T. KRISHNAVALLI
HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY
HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)Page 11 of 21
PRESENT:
For the Petitioner : Shri Samarth Sreedhar
For Respondent No.10 : Ms. Prerna Ponnappa
For Respondent No.13 : Mr. Abhay Shetty,
Mr. Rajendra Barot, Ms. Priyanka
Shetty, Ms. Aditi Bhansali,
For R7, 15 & 17 : Shri Chaitanya SharmaORDER
1. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and
Respondents.
2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed a
Memo for withdrawal vide Diary No.3260 dated
06.06.2024 stating that the parties have entered into
settlement and executed a Settlement Agreement on 3rd
June 2024. Therefore he requested to permit him to
withdraw the present petition with liberty to the
Petitioner to resort the said petition in case of breach of
any terms of Settlement Agreement.
3. In view of the above, C.P. No.12/BB/2024 is disposed
of as withdrawn and all the pending CAs stand closed.=
9. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that after having receipt the settlement amount of
Rs.4,16,24,391.68/- for good, the opposite party No.3 resorted to
the present proceeding so as to pressurize the petitioners to extract
additional sum. The other counsels appearing for the petitioners
have more or less submitted the same facts and have relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vrs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 118. They have relied upon paragraph-33 of the
Neeharika (supra), which reads as under:-
<33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified inPage 12 of 21
passing an interim order of stay of investigation
and/or <no coercive steps to be adopted=, during
the pendency of the quashing petition under
Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and in what circumstances
and whether the High Court would be justified in
passing the order of not to arrest the accused or
<no coercive steps to be adopted= during the
investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is
filed under Section 173 CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not
quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR
in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, our final conclusion are as under:-
33.1. Police has the statutory right and duty
under the relevant provisions of the Code of
Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV
of the Code to investigate into a cognizable
offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation
into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the
first information report that the Court will not
permit an investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been
observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be
confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from
usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since thePage 13 of 21
two organs of the State operate in two specific
spheres of activities and one ought not to tread
over the other sphere.
33.9. The functions of the judiciary and the
police are complementary, not overlapping.
33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non-
interference would result in miscarriage of
justice, the Court and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of investigation
of offences.
33.11. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the
Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on
the Court to act according to its whims or
caprice.
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported.
Therefore, when the investigation by the police
is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must
be permitted to complete the investigation. It
would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the
complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of
process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no
substance in the application made by the
complainant, the investigating officer may file
an appropriate report/summery before the
learned Magistrate which may be considered by
the learned Magistrate in accordance of the
known procedure.=
They have also relied upon another judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Mahesh Cooperative
Urban Bank Shareholders Welfare Association vrs. Ramesh
Kumar Bung and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 475.
Page 14 of 21
Relevant would be to reproduce paragraph-22 of the said
judgment:-
<22. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior
counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3,
Neeharika (supra) certainly allowed space for
the High Court to pass an interim order of the
nature impugned herein, “in exceptional cases
with caution and circumspection, giving brief
reasons”. What is frowned upon in Neeharika
(supra) is the tendency of the courts to pass
blanket, cryptic, laconic, non-speaking orders
reading “no coercive steps shall be adopted”. In
Paragraph 60 of the Report in Neeharika
(supra), this Court recognized that there may be
allegations of abuse of process of law,
converting a civil dispute into a criminal
dispute, with a view to pressurize the accused. In
the order impugned in these petitions, the High
Court has given elaborate reasons as to how the
allegations of bank fraud were developed during
the proceedings concerning allegations of
election fraud. Therefore, the impugned order
cannot be said to be bad in the light of
Neeharika principles.=
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the
aforementioned submissions and by relying upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) and
A.P. Mahesh (supra) have contended that this Court in the facts
scenario of the present case should stay the investigation on the
FIR.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
complainant/opposite party No.3, however, vehemently opposed the
interim prayer made by the petitioners on various grounds. They
Page 15 of 21
have pointed out that prima facie case appears to have been madeout against the petitioners and the investigation is at the nascent
stage. Therefore, this Court is forbidden under the law to pass any
order staying the investigation of the case.
12. Learned counsels have taken me to the voluminous record
placed before the Court to impress this Court that prima facie case
is made out against the petitioners and in the face of the
complicated facts of the case, investigation by the police is
inevitable.
13. Taking note of the aforementioned submissions, this Court
posed a question and sought information from the learned State
Counsel regarding the progress of investigation of the case.
14. Mr. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State has placed on record the written instruction dated 17.12.2024
issued by A.K. Mishra, Deputy SP/IO, EOW, Bhubaneswar.
Paragraphs-2 to 8 of the said instruction assumed relevance for the
present purpose. Hence, reproduced:-
<2. That, the prosecution case as unfurled in FIR
tersely is that Tiger Global and its employee
Deep Varma, Goldman Sachs and its employee
SulabhArya, Chiratae Ventures and its employee
SudhirSethi&Kailash Nath, SchrodersAdveq and
its employee ViswanathanParameswar, Jitendra
Jagadev and Smruti Ranjan Parida, Ex Directors
of NestAway Technologies Pvt Ltd, in collusion
and connivance with third party buyer Aurum
Proptech Limited by creating forged documents,Page 16 of 21
have managed to sell away the company
NestAway Technologies Pvt Ltd by deceiving
and cheating him with a false promise of paying
him Rs.11.72 Crores out of their share from the
sale price of Rs.90 crores.
03. That, the complaint revealed that the
informants’ allegations are essentially threefold:
(i) Forgery-and fraudulent use of his signature as
the Director of NestAway in the Share Purchase
Agreement dated 28.06.2023 (ii) the accused
persons No.1 to 9 being the erstwhile
investors/shareholders (‘accused investors’) of
NestAway Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (‘NestAway’)
had deceitfully promised to pay out a sum of
Rs.11.72 Cr. to the informant and had conspired
to induce him to sell his shareholding and the
company to a listed company named M/s Aurum
Prop Tech Ltd. (‘Aurum’), (iii) Criminal
intimidation by accused No.7 on behalf of the
accused persons to cause death to the informant
at Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
04. That, on cursory look at the FIR, it is
luminescent and pellucid that the accused
persons dishonestly induced the informant to
pay him Rs.11.72 crores if informant signs the
sale documents. Being persuaded by such
dishonest inducement, the informant believing
their promise which was given at the very
inception of the transaction completed the sale
documents. But, subsequently the accused
persons did not pay single farthing as promised.
The non-payment of promised amount of
Rs.11.72 crores reflects the dishonest intention
of the accused persons otherwise they would not
have initially deceived the informant. Had the
informant not been so induced by the accused
persons, he would not have executed the sale
document. Due to dishonest inducement and
consequential execution of sale documents the
informant ultimately suffered pecuniary loss.
Thus, the ingredient of cheating as envisaged u/s
415 of IPC is fully and wholly attracted in best
fitness of the circumstances of the case. The
offence of cheating is conspicuously available in
Page 17 of 21
face of FIR itself. Thus, the prayer to quash the
FIR is devoid of any merit.
05. That, it is pertinent to humbly submit here
that the accused persons clandestinely and
cunningly have managed to affix the signature
of the informant in relation to the sale
transaction showing him as Director on
28.06.2023 though by that time the resignation
of the informant from the Directorship has been
accepted on 19.06.2023. Moreover, the signed
page of the informant as Director entrusted on
06.06.2023 has lost its efficacy and validity in
view of the fact that the resignation of the
informant as the Director has been accepted on
19.06.2023. Thus, the said signed document
becomes incapable of being used as Director for
any purpose. Thus, the accused persons
deliberately have managed to affix the previous
signature appearing on company documents of
the informant to complete the sale transaction
behind the back of the informant. Hence, the
said document is a forged and fabricated one
created for the purpose of cheating the
informant.
06. That, if a bird’s eye view is given to the said
forged document, it is crystal clear that there is
absolutely no writing at the footer of the page,
whereas in the original signature page, there is
writing at the footer of the page and the title has
been mentioned. Besides, in all other documents
signed by witnesses annexed to the Share
Purchase Agreement dtd.28.06.2023, the writing
at the footer of the page do find place. So there
is clear cut identification of the forged
documents. This part of forgery has been lucidly
reflected in the body of the FIR. Hence, the
offence of forgery u/s 467 IPC, forgery with
intent to cheat the informant u/s 468 IPC and
offence of using the forged documents as
genuine knowing the same fully well that the
said documents are forged u/s 471 IPC
prominently surfaces in face of FIR. Thus, no
case is made out by the petitioner to quash the
FIR at the very infancy stage of investigation.
Page 18 of 21
07. That, during investigation, the complainant
has been examined and some documents
pertaining to the informant, M/s Nestaway
Technologies Private Limited and Aurum
Proptech Limited as well as emails, whatsapp
chats etc have been seized on 01.10.2024 and
10.10.2024 from the complainant which
includes the Photocopy of Share Purchase
agreement between Aurum Proptech Limited
and Nestaway Technologies Private Limited and
sellers and warrant holders dated 28.06.2023
photocopy of Resignation letter dtd 19.06.2023
of Amarendra Sahu as well as Resolution passed
in the meeting of Board of Directors of
Nestaway Technologies Private Limited held on
19.06.2023 regarding resignation of Amarendra
Sahu, Email correspondences with Amarendra
Sahu and others regarding Payout structure and
next steps regarding payout of Rs.11.72 Crores
in addition to pro-rata payout to Amar etc.
alongwith trail emails, computer Printout copies
having details of Pandara Trust, Technology
Venture Fund, Chiratae Trust etc.
08. That, in response to notice under section 94
of BNSS addressed to Indranil Chattrjee, Sr
Vice President, NestAway., instead of sending
the physical and original documents as sought
for, one Miss Kriti Y Khandelwal, Legal
Counsel of NestAway Technologies Pvt Ltd has
sent soft copies of some documents through
email which also contains the soft copy of SPA.
On perusal of the said soft copy of SPA, it was
also found that the complainant’s signature on
behalf of NestAway Technologies Pvt Ltd in the
soft copy of the SPA the writing in the footer is
also found missing. Thus, the allegation of the
complainant regarding forgery prima facie
appears to have inspired confidence calling for
further detailed investigation to arrive at just and
correct decision in discovery of truth.=
15. During hearing, it has also been brought to the notice of
this Court that one of the co-accused in the present case, namely,
Page 19 of 21
Smruti Ranjan Parida had applied for anticipatory bail by filing
ABLAPL No.14249 of 2024. The coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 16.12.2024 has allowed the application of the said
co-accused, namely, Smruti Ranjan Parida and extended the
concession of pre-arrest bail to him while noting the fact that the
present batch of petitions are pending before this Court.
16. It’s no gain observing that the petitioners can also resort to
the recourse as has been opted by the co-accused, namely, Smruti
Ranjan Parida.
17. Having said that, I am of the considered view that in the
facts scenario of the present case, this Court at this stage shall not
venture into the merits of the case, rather leave it to the
Investigating Agency to investigate the entire allegations in right
prospective.
18. Since the entire case sought to be projected by the
complainant/opposite party No.3 hinges upon the documents and
large part of those documents have already been placed on record in
the present proceeding, it would be appropriate that the
Investigating Officer (I.O.) shall look into each and every
documents placed before this Court and deal with the same in
accordance with law while preparing the report/final form under
Section 173 Cr.P.C (Section 193 of BNSS).
Page 20 of 21
19. Taking into consideration the entire conspectus of the case
and the law occupying the field, I am of the considered view that
the petitioners need to be protected intermittently till they resort to
the right remedy available to them under law as has been availed by
the co-accused, namely, Smruti Ranjan Parida. Hence, the I.O. of
the present case is directed not to take coercive action against the
petitioners, subject to the petitioners extending cooperation to the
Investigating Officer to facilitate fair investigation of the case. The
petitioners are at liberty to avail the procedural remedy of pre-arrest
concession from the Competent Court. Till then, the protection
granted by this Court shall operate.
20. List this matter on 09.01.2025.
21. Mr. Jena, learned Additional Government Advocate for the
State is directed to file a fresh status report by the next date.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 02-Jan-2025 19:50:25
Page 21 of 21