SUKHMEET SINGH ANAND Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26th March, 2018 dismissing the application of the petitioner seeking cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner, petitioner prefers the present petition through his power of attorney, Manit Jauhar.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that a complaint was filed by M/s Samsung Gulf Electronics FZE (in short 'Samsung') through its authorized representative Wookjoong Yoon before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that its Financial Controller S.C. Baek was found involved in certain fictitious transactions shown to have been entered during 1992-2002 between Samsung and M/s Sky Impex, a company owned and held by Sukhmeet Singh Anand, the petitioner herein and Pradeep Kumar Ghatania. The modus operandi adopted by these persons was that on the request of Sukhmeet Singh Anand, S.C. Baek would place fictitious orders on M/s Sky Impex for products such as HT cable, aluminum metal, coke calcinations packages etc. which were not even required by Samsung and the products were never even received. On the basis of fictitious orders placed by S.C. Baek, M/s Sky Implex raised false invoices and bills of exchange payable within 90-210 days and S.C. Baek misusing his official position as Financial Controller of Samsung would sign off and accept the bills of exchange. M/s Sky Impex by discounting these fictitious bills of exchange with the help of related documents would generate cash flows in its favour taking advantage of the credit extended by Samsung. In the year 2003 when S.C. Baek left UAE without permission, internal inquiries and independent audits revealed the fraud committed. Thus Samsung filed a complaint against S.C. Baek, M/s Sky Impex owned by Sukhmeet Singh Anand and others at a Police Station in Dubai. After a proper investigation and trial, the Court at Dubai came to the conclusion that Sukhmeet Singh Anand and Pradeep Ghatania dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated a total amount of USD 85,99,757 from Samsung by fraudulent means. The accused were convicted and awarded imprisonment followed by deportation.

(3.) Samsung in the present complaint alleges that faced with the conviction after the trial at Dubai, Sukhmeet Singh Anand and Pradeep Kumar Ghatania established a false claim against Samsung by forging and fabricating a bill of exchange bearing No. SM 1 C dated 1st February, 2002 which forgery and fabrication allegedly took place in the jurisdiction of PS R.K. Puram or PS Shakarpur. Besides the bill of exchange dated 1st February, 2002, documents, such as purchase order dated 25th November, 2001 issued by M/s Sky Impex in favour JCE Consultancy [India], delivery receipt dated 28th January, 2002, issued by Sukhmeet Singh Anand in favour of JCE Consultancy stating that they had received goods as per the contract dated 1st December, 2001 and a performance certificate dated 1st February, 2002 issued by S.C. Baek were also forged and fabricated. To intimidate Samsung and its officials and by forging the documents as noted above Sheikh Allaudin Pakir Maiddin filed a false civil case before the Dubai Court which was rejected on 24th September, 2008 and a false complaint was filed before the ACJM, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh on 5th January, 2005. In the said complaint at Ghaziabad summons were issued against Samsung and its officials including the officials of parent company. Accused is also alleged to have sent fax messages generated from Delhi threatening Samsung to withdraw proceedings at Dubai and on failure to do so illegal and criminal intimidation was extended.