BALRAM GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by accused no.1 under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") for quashing of FIR bearing No.452 dtd. 14/11/2021, registered under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"), at Police Station Civil Lines, Sirsa, Haryana. This judgment has been divided into the following Sec. : - <FRM>JUDGEMENT_145_LAWS(P&H)4_2022_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The background of the case is that the above said FIR was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2-Poonam Gautam against five accused persons including the present petitioner, on the allegations that respondent No.2 had a wholesale Patanjli shop, number of which is DSS-50, HUDA Complex, old bus stand, near town park, Sirsa, District Sirsa and her business was running well when, accused No.1 had stated that M/s PC Jewellers had no showroom at Sirsa and in case, respondent No.2 were to act on their advice, then she will be able to earn more money than what she was earning from her old business and she will be able to earn a minimum of Rs.50,000.00 per month and in case, the respondent No.2 helps the company in selling the company items, then she would get commission of @ 2% on gold jewellery, 1% on coins and 5% on diamond and would earn an income of about Rs.4.00 to 5 lakhs per month from the said percentage commission. After the said assurance, respondent No.2 was informed that she would have to design her shop according to their architect Devender Gupta, for the purpose of sale of jewellery and she will have to pay fee to the said Devender Gupta. It is further alleged that the papers were received by the complainant- respondent No.2 from the said Devender Gupta and thereafter, she spent an amount of Rs.95,60,000.00 in renovating her shop which included expenses on account of installation of false ceiling in the shop, wallpapers, lights/electrification expenses, high standard wooden furniture, toughened glass, looking mirror including fittings, 82 KV Generator set, one split AC, Somany company tiles, granite and marvel, high tech CCTV cameras, five computers with hardware, iron racks for the employees etc. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.2,76,000.00 was also paid to the architect Devender Gupta and that the entire work was done on the advice of the said architect, who was sent by the accused no.1. During the said period, respondent No.2 had shifted the Patanjli shop to the basement on which also a lot of money was spent and on account of the said shifting, there was loss of business. It is further alleged that papers of the lease deed (annexed as Annexure A-1 with the complainant, on the basis of which, the present FIR has been registered) were given, to which, certain objections were raised by the respondent no.2, but however, under pressure the papers were got signed and registered and accordingly, the showroom was rented out to M/s PC Jewellers Limited as per the conditions laid down in the lease deed. The said lease deed was written at the instance of the company and it is alleged that the intention of accused No.1 was bad at the time of the execution of the lease agreement and it is on account of the said fact, that it had been written in para 3.2 of the said lease deed that respondent No.2 was to get commission on the sale of gold, silver and diamond jewellery etc., so that the respondent No.2 may not get more rent. It is further alleged that the accused persons sold out material in excess quantity with intent to pay less rent and when respondent No.2 opposed the same and stated that she did not want to work at the sale margin, then the accused persons started the process to take their material from the shop to the head office of the company and by 15/7/2021, they had taken almost the entire material. It is further alleged that respondent No.2 had her own Patanjli shop having its common shutter and there is a security system of the company in front of the shop which had been got installed by respondent No.2 and there is a locking system with the shutter to enter into the showroom and the said shutter was an automatic one, which was opened by a remote and the remote was kept by accused No.5 and the company had appointed four gunmen for its own security and respondent No.2 had requested a number of times to get her money, but the accused refused on one pretext or the other and rather the accused claimed that they had spent Rs.7,25,000.00 on front board and display material of the showroom and even sent its bills. It is alleged that when respondent No.2 demanded the balance payment, they refused to pay the same and when respondent No.2 insisted, the accused persons started shifting their material without giving any notice and the accused persons even refused to pay the commission and thus, respondent No.2 has suffered a great financial loss to the tune of Rs.29,20,100.00. It is also alleged that the accused persons have not paid the electricity, water, telephone bills amounting to Rs.1,26,448.86 and thus, respondent No.2 has been cheated. Further, allegations have been made with respect to the scheme JFL regarding which, it has been alleged that accused had collected a large amount of money from people although, the said scheme could not be launched and although the money has been returned to some persons, but the same is less than the principal amount due to which the customers come to the shop and quarrel with the complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons were involved in illegal activities as they had raised loans from the Bank and purchased gold, silver and diamonds with the said loans and had kept it in their stores/showrooms including the showroom of respondent No.2. It is further alleged that the accused persons used to sell jewellery without bills and the income tax department also needed to be informed with respect to the same. In the concluding part of the FIR, it has been prayed by respondent no.2 that the respondent no.2 has been put to a loss of Rs.29,20,100.00 and commission @ Rs.50,000.00 per month is payable to respondent no.2 and the same be got paid to respondent no.2 and incase, in case any jewellery is left, then the same be seized so that respondent No.2 can be compensated for the loss suffered by her and that the documents which have been prepared under pressure and compulsion by the accused, may be seized. On the basis of the said allegations, the present FIR under Sec. 420 IPC has been registered against five persons including the present petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, a purely civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. It has been argued that a perusal of the FIR would show that a dispute arose between the company M/s PC Jewellers and the complainant, with respect to a showroom, which had been let out by the complainant to the Company M/s PC Jewellers. It is argued that even as per FIR (page 62 of the paperbook), there is a lease deed which has been referred to in the FIR and the said lease deed is dtd. 1/4/2019 (annexed as Annexure P-1 with the petition). Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause Nos.2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 16 and 18.7 of the said lease deed. It is stated that the petitioner has not even signed the said lease deed and the same is signed by one Ravindra Kumar Singhal, on behalf of the company M/s PC Jeweller Limited. It is submitted that the said lease deed was entered into between Ms. Poonam Gautam and M/s PC Jeweller Limited, being the lessor and lessee, respectively and thus, the present petitioner is neither a party to the said lease deed nor is privy to the contractual relationship between the company and respondent no.2. As per clause 2 of the said agreement, the lessee was supposed to use the said premises solely for the purpose of retail business of jewellery. It is further highlighted that as per clause 3, the rental/payment to be made to Respondent no.2 were clearly defined. As per the said clause, the company was to pay a sum of rupees, which was equivalent to the percentage of sale as stated in clause 3.2 and it was specifically stated that the lessee i.e., the company, was not liable to pay any additional rent in any form by way of rent. As per clause 3.1 of the said lease deed, the lease was for a period of three years and thus, the same had to come to an end on 31/3/2022. Clause 4 of the said lease deed stipulated the lock in period, which specifically mentioned that there was no lock in period with respect to the present lease deed and it had further been provided that it was the company i.e., lessee, which could alone terminate the lease deed, by giving a 30 days' notice to the lessor/respondent No.2 and the lessor could not terminate the present lease deed during the entire period of three years. Leaned counsel for the petitioner however, has submitted that as per clause 16 of the lease deed, the lessor/respondent No.2 had a right to terminate the lease deed during the period of three years in case, the lessee i.e., the company, failed to pay continuous three months share of the revenue as per clause 3.2 and further has stated that the said clause 4 be read along with clause 16. Further, clause Nos.12.1 and 12.4 have also been highlighted to show that the lessor was responsible for all major structural changes, maintenance, work in the building and further that the lessor was to ensure that the lessee has peaceful possession of the said scheduled premises. It has been argued that Clause 13 of the lease deed provided for the services/facilities, which were to be provided by the lessor to the lessee and no extra cost of the same was to be charged and under clause 13.1 sub-clause (j), all interior designing with furniture and fixtures was to be provided by the lessor, without any extra cost. Specific reference has been made to Clause 18.7 of the above-said lease deed, which stipulates the arbitration clause and the jurisdiction and specifically provides that all the disputes arising from or out of or touching upon or in relation to the terms or formation of this lease deed or its termination including interpretation and validity, were to be settled amicably by mutual consent, failing which, the same was to be settled through arbitration by a Sole Arbitrator, who was to be appointed by mutual consent of the parties.