J.P.DAS,J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two criminal misc. cases, both the applications filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., 1973 with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. in G.R. Case No. 989 of 2015 on the file of learned J.M.F.C.(O), Bhubaneswar arising out of E.O.W. Bhubaneswar P.S. Case No. 22 of 2015 dated 30.10.2015 registered under Sections 406/420/467/468/109/120-B/34, I.P.C. against the petitioners in both the applications. The case was registered on the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party no. 2, one Saranpal Singh Sethi in both the cases.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the informant opposite party no. 2 submitted a written F.I.R. at Balianta Police Station in the district of Khurda on 05.09.2015 alleging that he as the Director of Reputed Real Estate private limited company, New Delhi, was approached by one Rahul Gaur and his wife Navnit Bhadla who were Chairman and Director respectively of the company M/s. Bryce International Pvt. Ltd. for a loan of Rs. 18.00 crores on favour of their company and after due negotiation the informant entered into a loan agreement through two unregistered deeds with the said company on 29.02.2014 and advanced a loan of Rs. 18.00 crores by way of RTGs and cheque payment. As security for repayment of the advanced loan amount both the loanees created a security interest in favour of the informant by creating first and exclusive charge of the informant on certain properties at Bhubaneswar and in Noida, New Delhi by depositing title deeds. He further alleged that the secured property at Noida was subsequently released by the informant on the request of the loanees and it was replaced with an alternate security of three flats. It was agreed between the parties, as per the loan agreement that the loanee company will neither part with the possession of the mortgaged properties nor any part thereof nor put it to sell, mortgage, lease, surrender or otherwise alienate the mortgaged properties or any part thereof or create any their party interest in the mortgaged properties. The informant further alleged that it was agreed upon between the parties that the particulars of the charges created in favour of the informant would be registered with the Registrar of Companies within seven days from the date of disbursement of the loan amount but the loanees did not comply the same. In the month of June 2015 when the informant approached the loanees for refund of part amount including interest they failed to do so. Despite repeated requests and reminders the loanee company did not repay the loan amount or its interest accrued thereon. The informant doubting credibility of the loanees made an enquiry and found out that the company through its Chairman and Director had entered into a Collaboration and Development Agreement (for short CD) on 14.07.2015 with one Sarvoyoni Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner no. 1 in CRLMC No. 95 of 2016) through its Director Arun Mohan (petitioner no. 2 in CRLMC No. 95 of 2016) for development of a commercial and housing/residential project over part of the secured property at Bhubaneswar which was mortgaged with the informant under the loan agreement. The said agreement was entered into with a consideration of Rs. 6.50 crores which was not actually paid. As per the agreement, the loanees granted development and sale rights over part of the secured property granting 50% share in the entire project in favour of the said company.
(3.) The informant further alleged that on further enquiry he could learn that the subsequent company Sarvoyoni Builders and Developers was merely a fagade of the original loanees and the loanee Rahul Gaur was appointed as the Additional Director of the said company and subsequently he resigned from the said company on 10.09.2015, i.e., after five days of the registration of the F.I.R. and Ramesh Chandra Chopra the petitioner in CRLMC No. 1308 of 2016 became the Director thereof. Hence the informant alleged that the original loanees along with their company in collusion with the present petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the informant in respect of the property mortgaged as security for the loan amount. The informant further alleged that the present petitioners intentionally and illegally entered into the CDA despite having knowledge of the existence of the loan agreement with a malafide intention to defraud the informant besides violating the terms of agreement.;