RAJEEV SARDA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Cope of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Crpc) the Petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. 1357/1 titled ravinder Kumar v. Amit Kumar and Ors. and the resultant FIR No. 199/2005 dated 17th May, 2005 registered at Police Station ( P. S.) Tilak Marg, New Delhi against the petitioner under Sections 467/468/471/420 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of an order dated 15th February, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, ( MM ) New Delhi directing the Station house Officer ( SHO ), P. S. Tilak Marg, New Delhi to investigate the matter under Section 202 Crpc for the alleged conspiracy for forgery and submit a report to the court.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the petition are that a complaint was filed in the Court of the learned MM on 21st May, 2002 by the Respondent No. 2 shri Ravinder P. Kumar, a Director of M/s. Arcon Electroplast Pvt. Limited against Shri Amit Kumar and five others including the Petitioner here who was arrayed as Respondent No. 3 therein. In the complaint, registered as Complaint case No. 1357/1, it was alleged that the accused 2 to 4 i. e. Shri T. R. Biyani, shri Rajeev Sarda, the Petitioner here, and Shri Sanjay Sarda were closely related to each other and were common directors of a group of companies which included M/s. Sparrow Technologies Limited, M/s. Adige Computer Service Private limited and M/s. Sparrow Microelectronics Pvt. Limited. It is alleged that the companies had approached the complainant for supply of goods on short-term credit with the assurance of making payments. The complainant had, pursuant to such assurance, supplied goods and a sum of Rs. 3,46,332. 25 paise was found outstanding and due from M/s. Sparrow Technologies Limited. It is also alleged that these accused failed to furnish the C form and when the amount remains unpaid despite several requests, the complainant filed a suit on the Original side of this Court for recovery of Rs. 8,76,000/ -.

(3.) THE complaint proceeded to state that accused Shri Amit Kumar acting as pairokar of accused 2 to 4 filed an application under Section 8 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( Act ) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) in this Court in the pending suit stating that the dispute should be referred to arbitration in Bangalore and that no cause of action had arisen in Delhi. It is stated that along with the said application, accused 2 to 4 through accused 1 filed a false and fabricated document being a photostat copy of an attested copy of an alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 9th January, 1998 purporting to have been executed by the plaintiff/complainant in Bangalore and containing an arbitration clause. It is stated that no such MOU was ever executed by the complainant. It was pointed out that stamp paper on which the MOU was drawn was purchased much prior to the date of execution of the alleged MOU. In fact the date was even prior to the date on which business, even according to the defendants, had been transacted between the parties. It is then stated in the complaint that: there is no bar of Section 195 Cr. PC since the original document has not been filed and only the photocopy of the same has been filed in the Hon ble High Court.