- (1.) HEARD Sri G.S.Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ajai Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Yogesh Agrawal and Sri D.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant, the respondent no.3.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioners Kiran Kumar Navratnamal Mehta, Kailash Shri Ram Agrawal and Varun Kiran Kumar Mehta with the following prayers; I.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned FIR dated 11.9.2014 registered as case crime no. 873 of 2014 under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420,467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120 -B IPC Police Station Hariparvat District Agra. II.Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR dated 11.9.2014 registered as case crime no. 873 of 2014 under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420,467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120 -B IPC Police Station Hariparvat District Agra. III.Issue any other writ, order or directin in favour of petitioner whatever this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. IV.Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioners.
(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to lodging the impugned FIR, a complaint case no. 67 of 2013 dated 21.2.2013 has been filed by respondent no. 3 in the Court of 11th, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. a. The allegations of the impugned FIR are only improvement of aforementioned complaint. b. The proceedings of the complaint case no. 67 of 2013 have been stayed by Hon'ble High Court on 9.7.2013 in Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 12486 of 2013. c. The allegations made in the First Information Report have not been based on any query made from Supervisory Statutory Authorities, which kept regular eye on the working of petitioners' company. d. The dispute in between the petitioners and complainant is at Mumbai but to create cause of action at Agra a wholly concocted and false allegation has been made that two persons came in the office of complainant at Agra on 29.7.2014 at about 11.00 am and they extended threats and demanded amount of shares. Those two persons namely Abdul Sattar and Vipin Aptey are having no relationship with Varun industries or the petitioners even they were not known to the. In fact, the fictitious names have been introduced to give colour to the allegations. e. The S.E. Investment company has itself raised the matter for repayment of loan in their favour before the arbitrator and on the pretext, the petitioners have failed to repay the loan, sold all the shares pledged before him by playing fraud and that too without prior information to SEBI which was mandatory requirement. The repayment of loan made by Varun industries to S.E. Investment has also been suppressed. f. The petitioners have not committed any criminal breach of trust nor committed any cheating or forgery but entire story framed in the impugned FIR is frivolous and concocted. There is no specific allegation to establish commission of any offence punishable under section 467, 468, 471 IPC. g. The petitioners are respectable citizens and have not committed any offence even they are not having any criminal antecedent except the cases framed by S.E. Investment or their agents. h. The petitioners were not entrusted with any property or with any dominion over property of S.E. investment or the respondent no. 3. There is no inducement made by the petitioners and allegation with regard to cheating is total false and concocted. I. In fact, the alleged default in repayment of loan was not caused on account of any breach by the petitioners but it was caused due to compound interest being charged by the S.E. Investment which was against the pledged loan agreement. The S.E. Investment has already illegally settled its entire amount by calculating compound interest on interest and subsequently by playing fraud of selling entire pledged shares of company. j. The impugned FIR has been lodged as a counter blast to suppress the petitioners from raising the counter claim of Rs. 49,68,54,750/ - as it reveals from the impugned FIR also. It is a case with regard to repayment of loan taken by the petitioners from the respondent no. 3. It is a dispute purely of civil nature but due to ulterior motive the colour of criminal nature has been given, in such circumstances, the impugned FIR may be quashed.;