OM PRAKASH SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been made for quashing of FIR No. 476/06 under Section 120B/406/408/420/467/471 IPC at PS Sarita Vihar. In the FIR complainant has made allegations that Shaheed Memorial Society held 500 shares of company M/s Capital Land Builders Private Limited out of the total share capital of 560 shares; each share of face value Rs.100/-. The original share certificates were issued by M/s Capital Land Builders Private Limited in the name of Shaheed Memorial Society. The original share certificates were with Shaheed Memorial Society however, by playing fraud upon the society, the accused persons transferred the shares of the society, taking benefit of the illness of its erstwhile Secretary Ch. Brahm Parkash, ex Chief Minister of Delhi, in different names. The shares were mainly transferred by accused Kishore Lal in the names of his relatives. Some shares were fraudulently transferred in the name of Ch. Brahm Prakash himself using his blank signed papers which were obtained during 1972 Jaiperkash Narayans Movement. The society never passed any resolution for transfer of these shares in the name of anyone and had not authorized any person for transfer of these shares. The society continued to hold the original share certificates and all transactions were done without the knowledge and authorization of the governing body of society. Complainant also filed a complaint before Company Law Board in respect of fraudulent transfer of shares. The accused persons neither answered to the queries raised by the Company Law Board nor produced the record to show that the transfer was valid and legal. On the complaint an FIR was registered about misappropriation, cheating etc. concerning transfer of majority shares of M/s Capital Land Builder Private Limited held by Shaheed Memorial Society naming the petitioners as accused persons.

(2.) Quashing of FIR is sought by the petitioners on the ground that police has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and register an FIR as the alleged offences were within the domain of Companies Act. It is submitted that complaint relates to transfer of the shares by cheating, forgery and impersonation etc. and Section 116 of Companies Act provides penalty for impersonation of a shareholder and Sections 620 and 624 give jurisdiction to the Court of Magistrate of first class to try the offence in the Companies Act therefore, police could not register an FIR. It is stated that offence under Companies Act were non-cognizable and the provisions of Cr.P.C. could not be invoked. A case for offence under IPC could not be registered against the accused persons.

(3.) I consider that the arguments advanced by the counsel for petitioners are misconceived. An act of a person can constitute as an offence under different penal laws. An accused can be charged for offences under different penal laws at the time of trial for the same Act. There is no provision under any law that if an act constitutes offences under different penal laws accused can be tried only under one penal law. The complaint in question discloses commission of offences of fraudulent transfer of 500 shares of the complainant society by fraud, impersonation, forgery and cheating. These offence are cognizable offences under IPC if impersonation is an offence under Section 116 of Companies Act that does not mean that an FIR under IPC cannot be registered.