B.M.GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS of the above captioned four petitions are the accused persons in Criminal Complaint under Sections 415/420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B of IPC (Annexure ­ A) preferred by complainant-M/s. Kanin (India) Pvt. Ltd. in which petitioners have been summoned as accused vide order of 15 th September, 2004. Since the aforesaid criminal complaint (Annexure ­ A) and summoning order of 15th September, 2004 in relation to the aforesaid criminal complaint, is common in the above four petitions and the submissions advanced are also identical, therefore, with the consent of both the sides, above-mentioned four petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IT emerges from the record that complainant-company had purchased plot No.A-46, Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi from accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) and in lieu thereof, complainant company had allotted to him 3840 equity shares of Rs.100/- each at par being equivalent to the value of plot i.e. Rs.3,84,000/-. In respect of aforesaid transaction, an Agreement to Sell of 17th November, 1985 was executed by petitioner-accused Arihant Jain in the capacity of Managing Director of the complainant-company and the said Agreement was with accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased).

(3.) THE basic stand taken in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) is that since accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) was no longer the owner of the plot in question, therefore, he could not have bequeathed it to accused-Ms. Raman Jain (since deceased). It is averred in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) that after purchase of the plot in question, complainant-company had spent huge sum of money for raising construction on the plot in question and the house tax is being also paid by the complainant-company. It is also averred in the criminal complaint (Annexure-A) that accused-Ms. Vinod was fully aware that her husband accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) had sold the plot in question to complainant-company, but still petitioners-accused persons had entered into criminal conspiracy to wrongfully claim the ownership of the plot in question, which was duly sold by accused-A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) to complainant-company. It is also averred that petitioners-accused persons had given their 'no objection' at the time of issuance of Letter of Administration in respect of the plot in question whereas they were well aware about the plot in question having been sold by accused- A.P. Chaudhary (since deceased) to complainant-company and thus, petitioners-accused persons had conspired to issue rent receipt, which is forged.