- (1.) This is second petition by petitioner M/s S.R. Builders Limited, whereby provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code') have been sought to be invoked seeking quashing of the orders dated 17.09.2015 (Annexure P1) of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon whereby the revisional Court had set aside the orders dated 03.07.2015 (Annexure P7) of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurgaon whereby earlier directions had been issued by the learned Magistrate for appearance of the Directors of the Company.
(2.) Upon hearing Mr. Aseem Mahrotra and Mr.Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocates for the petitioner; Mr. Munish Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana representing the State/respondent No.1; Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate on behalf of respondent No.2 and with their invaluable assistance perused the records as well.
(3.) The parties to this lis, the petitioners M/s S.R. Builders Limited as well as respondent No.2 M/s M.G.F. Developments Ltd., both are carrying on the business in real estate and along with one of associate Companies M/s Columbia Holdings Private Limited of respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement whereby the petitioners who happen to be the owners and in possession of a tract of land measuring 16 Kanals/2 Acres fairly described and depicted in the complaint situated in Tehsil and District Gurgaon for the purpose of business. By virtue of this agreement to sell dated 09.05.2001, petitioner/complainant undertook to sell the land in question and to deliver the actual vacant physical possession of the same to the accused Companies M/s M.G.F. Developments Ltd. and M/s Columbia Holdings Private Limited. During the course of events, a dispute had arisen between the complainant and the accused side leading to filing of criminal complaint by the present petitioners against the accused respondent No.2 M/s M.G.F. Developments Ltd. as well as M/s Columbia Holdings Private Limited. The allegations contained in the complaint spell out that the accused Companies have forged and fabricated an undated cash receipt for a sum of Rs. 20.00 lacs purported to have been issued by the complainant. It is stand of the complainant that he never executed such a document and which was rather a pure forged and fabricated document created by the accused side with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. It is during the course of proceedings the learned trial Magistrate vide orders dated 15.07.2005 summoned the accused for commission of offences under Sections 420/463/464/468/469/471/120B IPC. It is thereafter, a war of wits have ensued between the two sides which has led to filing of innumerable number of legal recourses before various Courts including this Court. The present petition is a result of one of those maverick attempts to browbeat the other side and thus to have an upper hand in this business transaction obviously to obviate the endeavours of the trial Court to adjudicate the matter at the earliest. Consequent upon orders dated 15.07.2005 summoning the accused to face the trial including the Directors of the accused Companies, i.e. Mr.Rajiv Gupta, Mr.Shravan Gupta and Mr.Sidharth Gupta, Directors of accused M/s MGF Developments Ltd. and Mr.Shravan Gupta and Mr.Sidharth Gupta both Directors of M/s Columbia Holdings Pvt. Ltd., the Court had been issuing summons to the accused side for all these years and when failed to have the accused obeying to its orders, non-bailable warrants were issued. It is thereafter, the accused side appears to have secured stay on the proceedings from the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon by filing a criminal revision and which too stood dismissed on 04.02.2010 thus, furthering the endeavours of one of the parties to put the proceedings to a slow pace. It is thereupon the accused have started filing applications before the learned trial Magistrate seeking exemption of their personal appearance without adhering to the orders of the Court and thereby putting off their appearance in pursuance of the process of their summoning. It is in furtherance of this effort, the accused have thereafter on 28.04.2010 moved another application for exemption on the ground that the accused have been allowed to appear through their counsel and that their exemption has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court till further orders. It is in somewhat similar efforts the two petitions bearing CRMM No.11642 of 2010 and CRM-M No.11929 of 2010, both under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint, summoning order and all proceedings emanating therefrom, came up before this Court and through a common order dated 16.02.2015 both these petitions stood dismissed. It is worthwhile to refer here that accused No.1 to 4 before the trial Court were allowed as per the orders of that Court dated 28.01.2011 to appear through their counsel and thus, paving way for progress of the trial of the complaint.;