SUPARNA BHALLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.7 dtd. 15/1/2025 under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), registered at Police Station IT City, Mohali, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that husband of the petitioner is a promoter of WTC, Noida Development Company Private Limited (for short 'WTC'). In the year 2015, the said company launched a commercial project in Mohali namely WTC Chandigarh and in the year 2022, complainants-respondents No.2 and 3 were allured to invest an amount of Rs.50,23,203.00 in the same. The units hence purchased by respondents No.2 and 3 were scheduled to be handed over by June, 2023. However, they were unable to take possession of the same, as the construction never picked pace, in spite of multiple re-assurances. A report dtd. 7/12/2022 prepared by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (for short 'SFIO'), which was presented before National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, also states that the accused company has collected about Rs.423.00 crores from 1162 clients. However, instead of putting it towards construction of the real estate project, as promised, they have siphoned off Rs.77.00 crores. In fact, in April, 2023, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short 'GMADA') had to revoke the land allotment, as the accused company had an overdue of Rs.103.00 crores. As such, the accused company has defrauded respondents No.2 and 3 and all its other clients.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner has been wrongly arraigned as an accused in FIR (supra). Even if the case of the prosecution is presumed to be correct, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner has never been a Director or even a shareholder in the accused company. In fact, neither she has been named in the FIR (supra) nor any specific allegation has been levelled against her. Further, nowhere it has been alleged that the petitioner deceived respondents No.2 and 3 or dishonestly induced them to part with their money, as she did not have any role in the day to day functioning of the accused company. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is a reputed architect, who is involved with many prestigious projects.