Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Judgment reserved on : 15 September, 2011
th
Judgment pronounced on : 19 September, 2011
+ CRL.M.C. 6743-46/2006
AMIT CHATURVEDI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rakesh Mukhija and
Mr.Babanjit Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) with Mr.Harsh Prabhakar,
Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Petitioners Amit Chaturvedi, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sumit
Chaturvedi and their father H.V.Chaturvedi pray to this Court
that FIR No.702/2004 be quashed. They allege that they have
compromised the matter with the persons who had deposited
various amounts with companies floated by them and rely upon
a Memorandum of Settlement. Justifying their plea that the
complainants are only 30 in number, whom they have
impleaded as R-2 to R-31 in the above captioned petition, they
rely upon the list of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 1 of 9
filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate.
2. Order sheet of this Court in the instant petition would
reveal that from time to time an attempt was made to verify
from R-2 to R-31 whether they have compromised the matter
and received the amounts invested by them with the companies
floated by the petitioners and those of whom could be
contacted, as recorded in the various orders passed, have
affirmed that they have received the money which they had
invested in the companies floated by the petitioners.
3. In a nutshell, the basis on which the accused desire the
FIR to be quashed is the purported settlement with the
investors.
4. I begin by highlighting that merely because 30 investors
are listed as witnesses by the prosecution, apart from other
official witnesses, does not mean that only said 30 persons had
invested money in the companies floated by the petitioners and
indeed the charge-sheet shows that number of persons duped
are not in a few hundred but in thousands.
5. There is no law that merely because a complainant or a
few out of many complainants compromise the matter with the
accused pertaining to a non-compoundable cognizable offence,
the FIR in question needs to be quashed on said sole ground. I
remind myself that the process of criminal law in India treats
cognizable non-compoundable offences as an offence against
the State and the complainants have the status of a victim. The
victim may settle, but the State may continue the prosecution
and whether or not a decision of the State is justified would be
gone into by a Court.
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 2 of 9
6. I ignore the conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court,
some of which have held that non-compoundable offences
resulting in FIRs are capable of being settled and inherent
power of a Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be resorted to,
to quash the FIRs and the decisions which hold to the contrary,
for the reason from the contents of the charge-sheet filed
against the accused, which would be soon herein after would be
noted by me, I am of the opinion that the FIR need not be
quashed.
7. As the nation fights corruption by the servants of the
public the other form of the evil of corruption i.e. cheating the
innocent population of this country by the organized syndicate
in the private domain also needs to be fought with equal
strength and resolve.
8. I reproduce now, relevant extracts from the charge-sheet
filed after investigation was completed in FIR No.702/2004 for
offences punishable under Section 406/409/420/120B IPC. They
read as under:-
“xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
During investigation, various documents have
been seized from different sources including investor
witnesses, banks etc. These documents includes fix
deposit receipts of the three companies, unpaid
cheques, bounced cheques of the investors with
reports of the bankers, correspondence made by the
investors with the directors of the company. The
banks including ICICI, Indian Overseas Bank, Ratnakar
Bank Ltd. etc. have also provided accounts opening
forms of the accused companies, details of authorized
signatories, board resolution of the three companies,
specimen signatures, memorandum & article of
association, bank statements etc. List of investors of
the three companies (1) Shamkeen Multifab Ltd. (2)
Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd. and (3) Shamkeen Spinners
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 3 of 9
Ltd., annual reports of different years of the three
companies, CLB order dt. 06.09.04 in the matter
No.2511/04/CLB giving schedule of repayments etc.
documents have been obtained.
During investigation, a large number of investors
have been examined, most of them are aged, lonely
and retired persons and are small investors. These
investors have reported that they have been induced
by the directors of the company by showing them rosy
pictures of good returns and timely repayments of
interest and principal amount on their small
investments. They have invested in fixed deposit
schemes of the company after being so induced. The
borrower company issued post dated cheques for the
interest and the principal amount. The company has
failed in its commitment and assurances to repay back
the FD as well as its interest made by the investors on
maturity. The post dated cheques issued by it have
already been dishonoured of the investors. The
management has indulged in deceitful and fraudulent
means to prolong the repayment and has even
managed to get back the original cheques from the
investors on the pretext of revalidating the same and
have not made any actual efforts to repay back the
money of the investors with malafide intentions.
COMMON DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES
During investigations, on perusal of various
documents as well as from examination of various
witnesses, it has been revealed that the Shamken
Group of Companies consisting of (1) Shamken
Multifab Ltd., (2) Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd. and (3)
Shamkeen Spinners Ltd. & (4) Dwarkadhish Spinners
Ltd. Though the companies are incorporated as
limited companies duly registered with the ROC but
are managed and controlled by majority directors of
one and the same family. The common directors in all
these companies are Mr.H.B Chaturvedi, his sons Amit
Chaturvedi, Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sumit Chaturvedi,
all directors. Mr.Sumit Chaturvedi is Jt.M.D. in
Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. and Director in Shamken
Multifab Ltd. other 3 are common directors in all
companies. The other common director with them is
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 4 of 9
Mr.Parvin Juneja who is appointed as Director-
Corporate Finance in all these companies. The father-
sons team are the promoter directors and Mr.Parvin
Juneja is their long time associate. The first three
companies namely (1) Shamken Multifab Ltd.(SML), (2)
Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd. (SCL) and (3) Shamkeen
Spinners Ltd.(SSL) are listed companies whose shares
are reportedly listed in the stock exchange. They
invited fixed deposits from the public. The corporate
headquarters of these companies is common and
located at Shamken House, B-1/A-20, Block B-1,
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi. The flagship company is Shamkeen
Multifab Ltd. which was incorporated on 10.11.86.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
During investigation, it has been revealed that in
pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused
directors of all the three companies namely (1)
Shamkeen Multifab Ltd., (2) Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd.
and (3) Shamkeen Spinners Ltd. floated three fixed
deposit schemes inviting fixed deposits from small
inivestors/public. They advertised the schemes
through their printed publicity material dt. 27.06.02
and 29.06.02. It offered effective interest rate upto
12.28% p.a., 13.66% pa and 13.66% pa, respectively.
It offered three schemes in the FDs in scheme, A, B &
C offering cumulative deposit plan, quarterly income
plan and monthly income plan respectively. They
have shown rosy pictures about their group companies
and future profitability. They declared that the
company is a profit making and dividend paying for
the last 15 years. They also assured higher rate of
interest than the prevailing bank rate and further
assured timely repayment of interest and principal
amount. They assured that the deposits were to be
used for the operations of the company. The public
was convinced with their assurances and promises and
invested in large scale in their schemes. The company
has received investment from the public under their
fixed deposit schemes in all three companies and have
issued fixed deposit printed receipts as well as post
dated cheques to the investors for the principal as well
as the interest amounts. The Co. did not honour its
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 5 of 9
commitment to give timely interest as well as return of
the principal amount to its FD holders. The post dated
cheques issued to the FD holders have been
dishonoured by the banks when presented by the FD
holders. The victims made complaints to the accused
persons who have mere assurances. The FD holders
are continuously visiting and meeting the directors of
the company but they are not being paid their dues.
No cogent reason has been given for not giving back
the money to the investors. Even the post dated
original cheques of some of the FD holders including
PN Mehndiratta, Sh.TK Chaudhary etc. have also been
taken back by the officials of the company on the
pretext of issuing fresh cheques, which were not
given. If given to some investors, these were again
bounced in the banks because no efforts were made
to facilitate its passing. The company directors have
no intention to repay back the principal as well as
interest to the FD holders. They did not provide
details of investments made from FDs, as they
asserted, was used to day to day requirements of the
company and that no particular assets were
purchased from this money.
The accused directors of the company while inviting
FDs from public concealed the fact that the income tax
authorities have conducted raids on their premises on
30.01.02 and seized various documents. This was done
intentionally or the investors would not have invested
with them.
FIXED DEPOSITS
The details of FD deposits by small investors in the
Shamken Group of Companies is as under as on
31.03.04:-
S.N. Name of the Co. F.D. No.of
Depositors
1. Shamken Spinners Ltd. ` 253.01 Lacs 1244
2. Shamken Multifab Ltd. `3 54.02 Lacs 1898
3. Shamken Cotsyn.Ltd. `218 .99 Lacs 1073
`826.02 Lacs 4215
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 6 of 9
These details have been provided by the accused
directors of the company to the Hon’ble Company Law
Board (CLB) and the details are mentioned in the CLB
order dt. 30.09.04.
The details of fixed deposits received from public
as provided by Mr.Sanjay Chaturvedi, Jt.Managing
Directors, Shamken Multifab Ltd. vide his undated
reply as on 30.09.03 are as under:-
S.N. Name of the Co. F.D. No.of
Depositors
1. Shamken Spinners Ltd. ` 268.24 Lacs 1207
2. Shamken Multifab Ltd. `410 .83 Lacs 1979
3. Shamken Cotsyn.Ltd. `237 .16 Lacs 1073
`916.23 Lacs 4259
The company has stated that they have
accepted public deposits u/s 58 A of the Companies
Act in order to meet their long term working capital
requirements. But the company has not provided the
details of expenditures made on working capital
arrangements through these funds.”
9. I have underlined, to highlight what I think of, and hence
opine to be of relevance to justify FIR not to be quashed.
10. The investigation would reveal that most of the investors
were aged, lonely and retired persons and were small investors.
Four companies were floated by the accused and the amount
deposited by the investors was secured by issuing post-dated
cheques, all of which were dishonoured. The cheques which
were replaced were also dishonoured. The advertisements
inviting deposits, made false declarations that the companies
receiving the deposits were profit making companies and were
paying dividends for the last 15 years. Petitioners concealed
from the investors that Income Tax Authorities have raided the
companied floated by the accused and had seized various
documents. An order passed by the Company Law Board on
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 7 of 9
30.9.2004 would reveal that the number of investors were 4215
and this I must clarify may not be the actual figure for the
reason there is a grave apprehension that the accused have
fudged the records. The accused had, as per their reply dated
30.9.2003 filed before the Company Law Board, disclosed the
number of investors to be 4259.
11. The most incriminating part of the sordid episode brazenly
executed by the accused is that the deposits were accepted
under the Companies Act to meet the long term working
requirements of the companies, but there was no evidence on
working capital arrangements through these funds.
12. The brazen and the depraving life-style of a few citizens of
India who do no productive job, often makes the common man
wonder as to the source of their extravagant life-style, and the
instant case opens the window to somewhat understand as to
what is happening.
13. I pen no more but would once again highlight that the
basis on which quashing of the FIR has been sought for is
factually incorrect. There are not 30 persons who invested in
the companied floated by the accused. The number of investors
taken for a ride are much more and merely because the
accused have settled the dispute with 30 investors, whose
names were entered in the list of witnesses filed along with the
charge-sheet, and observing that if the accused have bought
over the 30 witnesses, the prosecution has a right to produce
other witnesses and further that the case does not rest on the
testimony of the investors alone as there is documentary
evidence, on the strength of which, the prosecution seeks to
prove its case; the magnitude of the money involved and the
prima facie false assurances held out to the investors, I am of
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 8 of 9
the opinion that justice would be polluted if the FIR is quashed
and the stream of justice would flow if the FIR is permitted to be
taken to its logical conclusion.
14. The petition is dismissed imposing costs in sum of
` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to be deposited with the
Welfare Fund established by the Delhi Police and each petitioner
is directed to contribute equally to the same and if not
deposited within a month from today I direct that the same shall
be recovered by such appropriate coercive process by the
Investigating Officer and deposited with the Welfare Fund.
15. Interim stay granted is vacated.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
dk
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 9 of 9
th
% Judgment reserved on : 15 September, 2011
th
Judgment pronounced on : 19 September, 2011
+ CRL.M.C. 6743-46/2006
AMIT CHATURVEDI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Rakesh Mukhija and
Mr.Babanjit Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma, Standing Counsel
(Crl.) with Mr.Harsh Prabhakar,
Advocate for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. Petitioners Amit Chaturvedi, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Sumit
Chaturvedi and their father H.V.Chaturvedi pray to this Court
that FIR No.702/2004 be quashed. They allege that they have
compromised the matter with the persons who had deposited
various amounts with companies floated by them and rely upon
a Memorandum of Settlement. Justifying their plea that the
complainants are only 30 in number, whom they have
impleaded as R-2 to R-31 in the above captioned petition, they
rely upon the list of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 1 of 9
filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate.
2. Order sheet of this Court in the instant petition would
reveal that from time to time an attempt was made to verify
from R-2 to R-31 whether they have compromised the matter
and received the amounts invested by them with the companies
floated by the petitioners and those of whom could be
contacted, as recorded in the various orders passed, have
affirmed that they have received the money which they had
invested in the companies floated by the petitioners.
3. In a nutshell, the basis on which the accused desire the
FIR to be quashed is the purported settlement with the
investors.
4. I begin by highlighting that merely because 30 investors
are listed as witnesses by the prosecution, apart from other
official witnesses, does not mean that only said 30 persons had
invested money in the companies floated by the petitioners and
indeed the charge-sheet shows that number of persons duped
are not in a few hundred but in thousands.
5. There is no law that merely because a complainant or a
few out of many complainants compromise the matter with the
accused pertaining to a non-compoundable cognizable offence,
the FIR in question needs to be quashed on said sole ground. I
remind myself that the process of criminal law in India treats
cognizable non-compoundable offences as an offence against
the State and the complainants have the status of a victim. The
victim may settle, but the State may continue the prosecution
and whether or not a decision of the State is justified would be
gone into by a Court.
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 2 of 9
6. I ignore the conflicting decisions of the Supreme Court,
some of which have held that non-compoundable offences
resulting in FIRs are capable of being settled and inherent
power of a Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be resorted to,
to quash the FIRs and the decisions which hold to the contrary,
for the reason from the contents of the charge-sheet filed
against the accused, which would be soon herein after would be
noted by me, I am of the opinion that the FIR need not be
quashed.
7. As the nation fights corruption by the servants of the
public the other form of the evil of corruption i.e. cheating the
innocent population of this country by the organized syndicate
in the private domain also needs to be fought with equal
strength and resolve.
8. I reproduce now, relevant extracts from the charge-sheet
filed after investigation was completed in FIR No.702/2004 for
offences punishable under Section 406/409/420/120B IPC. They
read as under:-
“xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
During investigation, various documents have
been seized from different sources including investor
witnesses, banks etc. These documents includes fix
deposit receipts of the three companies, unpaid
cheques, bounced cheques of the investors with
reports of the bankers, correspondence made by the
investors with the directors of the company. The
banks including ICICI, Indian Overseas Bank, Ratnakar
Bank Ltd. etc. have also provided accounts opening
forms of the accused companies, details of authorized
signatories, board resolution of the three companies,
specimen signatures, memorandum & article of
association, bank statements etc. List of investors of
the three companies (1) Shamkeen Multifab Ltd. (2)
Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd. and (3) Shamkeen Spinners
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 3 of 9
Ltd., annual reports of different years of the three
companies, CLB order dt. 06.09.04 in the matter
No.2511/04/CLB giving schedule of repayments etc.
documents have been obtained.
During investigation, a large number of investors
have been examined, most of them are aged, lonely
and retired persons and are small investors. These
investors have reported that they have been induced
by the directors of the company by showing them rosy
pictures of good returns and timely repayments of
interest and principal amount on their small
investments. They have invested in fixed deposit
schemes of the company after being so induced. The
borrower company issued post dated cheques for the
interest and the principal amount. The company has
failed in its commitment and assurances to repay back
the FD as well as its interest made by the investors on
maturity. The post dated cheques issued by it have
already been dishonoured of the investors. The
management has indulged in deceitful and fraudulent
means to prolong the repayment and has even
managed to get back the original cheques from the
investors on the pretext of revalidating the same and
have not made any actual efforts to repay back the
money of the investors with malafide intentions.
COMMON DIRECTORS OF GROUP COMPANIES
During investigations, on perusal of various
documents as well as from examination of various
witnesses, it has been revealed that the Shamken
Group of Companies consisting of (1) Shamken
Multifab Ltd., (2) Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd. and (3)
Shamkeen Spinners Ltd. & (4) Dwarkadhish Spinners
Ltd. Though the companies are incorporated as
limited companies duly registered with the ROC but
are managed and controlled by majority directors of
one and the same family. The common directors in all
these companies are Mr.H.B Chaturvedi, his sons Amit
Chaturvedi, Sanjay Chaturvedi and Sumit Chaturvedi,
all directors. Mr.Sumit Chaturvedi is Jt.M.D. in
Shamken Cotsyn Ltd. and Director in Shamken
Multifab Ltd. other 3 are common directors in all
companies. The other common director with them is
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 4 of 9
Mr.Parvin Juneja who is appointed as Director-
Corporate Finance in all these companies. The father-
sons team are the promoter directors and Mr.Parvin
Juneja is their long time associate. The first three
companies namely (1) Shamken Multifab Ltd.(SML), (2)
Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd. (SCL) and (3) Shamkeen
Spinners Ltd.(SSL) are listed companies whose shares
are reportedly listed in the stock exchange. They
invited fixed deposits from the public. The corporate
headquarters of these companies is common and
located at Shamken House, B-1/A-20, Block B-1,
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,
New Delhi. The flagship company is Shamkeen
Multifab Ltd. which was incorporated on 10.11.86.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
During investigation, it has been revealed that in
pursuance of the said conspiracy, the accused
directors of all the three companies namely (1)
Shamkeen Multifab Ltd., (2) Shamkeen Cotsyn Ltd.
and (3) Shamkeen Spinners Ltd. floated three fixed
deposit schemes inviting fixed deposits from small
inivestors/public. They advertised the schemes
through their printed publicity material dt. 27.06.02
and 29.06.02. It offered effective interest rate upto
12.28% p.a., 13.66% pa and 13.66% pa, respectively.
It offered three schemes in the FDs in scheme, A, B &
C offering cumulative deposit plan, quarterly income
plan and monthly income plan respectively. They
have shown rosy pictures about their group companies
and future profitability. They declared that the
company is a profit making and dividend paying for
the last 15 years. They also assured higher rate of
interest than the prevailing bank rate and further
assured timely repayment of interest and principal
amount. They assured that the deposits were to be
used for the operations of the company. The public
was convinced with their assurances and promises and
invested in large scale in their schemes. The company
has received investment from the public under their
fixed deposit schemes in all three companies and have
issued fixed deposit printed receipts as well as post
dated cheques to the investors for the principal as well
as the interest amounts. The Co. did not honour its
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 5 of 9
commitment to give timely interest as well as return of
the principal amount to its FD holders. The post dated
cheques issued to the FD holders have been
dishonoured by the banks when presented by the FD
holders. The victims made complaints to the accused
persons who have mere assurances. The FD holders
are continuously visiting and meeting the directors of
the company but they are not being paid their dues.
No cogent reason has been given for not giving back
the money to the investors. Even the post dated
original cheques of some of the FD holders including
PN Mehndiratta, Sh.TK Chaudhary etc. have also been
taken back by the officials of the company on the
pretext of issuing fresh cheques, which were not
given. If given to some investors, these were again
bounced in the banks because no efforts were made
to facilitate its passing. The company directors have
no intention to repay back the principal as well as
interest to the FD holders. They did not provide
details of investments made from FDs, as they
asserted, was used to day to day requirements of the
company and that no particular assets were
purchased from this money.
The accused directors of the company while inviting
FDs from public concealed the fact that the income tax
authorities have conducted raids on their premises on
30.01.02 and seized various documents. This was done
intentionally or the investors would not have invested
with them.
FIXED DEPOSITS
The details of FD deposits by small investors in the
Shamken Group of Companies is as under as on
31.03.04:-
S.N. Name of the Co. F.D. No.of
Depositors
1. Shamken Spinners Ltd. ` 253.01 Lacs 1244
2. Shamken Multifab Ltd. `3 54.02 Lacs 1898
3. Shamken Cotsyn.Ltd. `218 .99 Lacs 1073
`826.02 Lacs 4215
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 6 of 9
These details have been provided by the accused
directors of the company to the Hon’ble Company Law
Board (CLB) and the details are mentioned in the CLB
order dt. 30.09.04.
The details of fixed deposits received from public
as provided by Mr.Sanjay Chaturvedi, Jt.Managing
Directors, Shamken Multifab Ltd. vide his undated
reply as on 30.09.03 are as under:-
S.N. Name of the Co. F.D. No.of
Depositors
1. Shamken Spinners Ltd. ` 268.24 Lacs 1207
2. Shamken Multifab Ltd. `410 .83 Lacs 1979
3. Shamken Cotsyn.Ltd. `237 .16 Lacs 1073
`916.23 Lacs 4259
The company has stated that they have
accepted public deposits u/s 58 A of the Companies
Act in order to meet their long term working capital
requirements. But the company has not provided the
details of expenditures made on working capital
arrangements through these funds.”
9. I have underlined, to highlight what I think of, and hence
opine to be of relevance to justify FIR not to be quashed.
10. The investigation would reveal that most of the investors
were aged, lonely and retired persons and were small investors.
Four companies were floated by the accused and the amount
deposited by the investors was secured by issuing post-dated
cheques, all of which were dishonoured. The cheques which
were replaced were also dishonoured. The advertisements
inviting deposits, made false declarations that the companies
receiving the deposits were profit making companies and were
paying dividends for the last 15 years. Petitioners concealed
from the investors that Income Tax Authorities have raided the
companied floated by the accused and had seized various
documents. An order passed by the Company Law Board on
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 7 of 9
30.9.2004 would reveal that the number of investors were 4215
and this I must clarify may not be the actual figure for the
reason there is a grave apprehension that the accused have
fudged the records. The accused had, as per their reply dated
30.9.2003 filed before the Company Law Board, disclosed the
number of investors to be 4259.
11. The most incriminating part of the sordid episode brazenly
executed by the accused is that the deposits were accepted
under the Companies Act to meet the long term working
requirements of the companies, but there was no evidence on
working capital arrangements through these funds.
12. The brazen and the depraving life-style of a few citizens of
India who do no productive job, often makes the common man
wonder as to the source of their extravagant life-style, and the
instant case opens the window to somewhat understand as to
what is happening.
13. I pen no more but would once again highlight that the
basis on which quashing of the FIR has been sought for is
factually incorrect. There are not 30 persons who invested in
the companied floated by the accused. The number of investors
taken for a ride are much more and merely because the
accused have settled the dispute with 30 investors, whose
names were entered in the list of witnesses filed along with the
charge-sheet, and observing that if the accused have bought
over the 30 witnesses, the prosecution has a right to produce
other witnesses and further that the case does not rest on the
testimony of the investors alone as there is documentary
evidence, on the strength of which, the prosecution seeks to
prove its case; the magnitude of the money involved and the
prima facie false assurances held out to the investors, I am of
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 8 of 9
the opinion that justice would be polluted if the FIR is quashed
and the stream of justice would flow if the FIR is permitted to be
taken to its logical conclusion.
14. The petition is dismissed imposing costs in sum of
` 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to be deposited with the
Welfare Fund established by the Delhi Police and each petitioner
is directed to contribute equally to the same and if not
deposited within a month from today I direct that the same shall
be recovered by such appropriate coercive process by the
Investigating Officer and deposited with the Welfare Fund.
15. Interim stay granted is vacated.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
dk
Crl.M.C. No.6743-46/2006 Page 9 of 9