SANJEEV KAKAR Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of FIR bearing no. 368/2022, registered at Police Station Kalkaji, South East, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC')

(2.) The brief facts of the present case are that on 2/3/2022, complainant Mr. Sandeep Behl, who is Director and Shareholder of Printland Digital (India) Private Limited ('the company'), filed a complaint with police that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Director on 28/5/2012 in the said company. On 3/4/2016, the company had purchased a car i.e., Creta 1.6 CRDi Auto SX+ Sleek Silver from Koncept Cars India Pvt. Ltd for official purpose. The company had availed loan facility of an amount of Rs.12,60,000.00 from ICICI Bank and for smooth functioning of the company, the management of the company had decided to entrust the said car to the petitioner herein. It is further stated that on 22/2/2019, the petitioner had resigned from the directorship of the company. The authorized representative, being one of the directors of the company, while accepting the resignation of the petitioner had requested him to return the car no. DL 12CJ 6451 and other properties given to him at the time of appointment, but he had not returned the same despite various requests and reminders. It was further alleged that the company was forced to send an email to the petitioner for return of car and other properties of the company but he had neither replied nor returned the car and other valuable articles of the company. The company had already paid the entire loan amount to the bank. It is further alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the car and other valuable properties of the company. On the basis of the complaint, present FIR was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the facts mentioned in the present case do not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for having dishonestly misappropriated the property of company. It is stated by the counsel for petitioner that the impugned FIR has been filed maliciously by the complainant with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance; moreover, petitioner is having a civil litigation with the company. It is further stated that the petitioner has been constrained to retain the vehicle and is justified in law to do it, since the complainant is unlawfully withholding the amount of salary of the son of petitioner and has misappropriated the same. Hence, it has been prayed that FIR be quashed.