UFIPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the revisional Court order dated 16.1.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby it has reversed the Summoning order dated 02.8.2017 under Section 319 Cr.P.C. passed by the trial Court and proceeded to dismiss the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. filed by the prosecution in case FIR No.263 dated 14.3.2009, under Sections 406 , 420 , 465 , 467 , 468 , 471 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Karnal Civil Lines, Karnal.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition are noticed below :-

(3.) After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the police and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted on 21.11.2009 against all the three accused persons named in the FIR. However, subsequently, an application was filed on 30.4.2011 seeking permission for further investigation in the case was allowed by the trial Court, thereby permitting the further investigation. It may be noticed here that the ownership of the land was not mentioned in the FIR, however, it was owned by Rajender Kumar Somany and Sandip Somany as co-sharers. The grievance of the complainant expanded as the said land was sold by way of three different sale deeds by M/s Golden Moments Private Limited, on the basis of power of attorney No.7709/4 dated 01.9.2008. During further investigation, it was found that the alleged power of attorney No.7709/4 dated 01.9.2008 was a forged instrument, which had been used at Karnal and few sale deeds were executed within the jurisdiction of Karnal. On the strength of further investigation, the supplementary charge- sheet dated 11.3.2014, under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed against Krishan Lal Taneja, Rajinder Kumar Somany, Sandip Somany, Soniya Gupta, Sarita Taklroo, Ram Niwas Jindal and Raj Kumar. In this way, after further investigation, in all ten accused were sent to face trial in the above mentioned FIR. At the stage, when the case was pending before the trial Court for framing of charges, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 17.11.2013 was executed between accused Rajender Kumar Somany, Sandeep Somany (first party) and M/s UFIPL Infrastructure Limited (second party), whereby the first party undertook to pay a sum of Rs.10 crores to the second party towards full and final settlement of all the disputes and the details of the payment made was also given in the said MOU. The civil suit for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative refund of Rs.4.75 crores, filed by the Company was also agreed to be withdrawn. The accused namely Sandip Somany, Rajender Kumar Somany and Ram Niwas Jindal had filed three separate petitions bearing CRM-M- 8431-2014, CRM-M-8432-2014 and CRM-M-37933-2014 respectively before this Court for quashing of FIR (Annexure P-1) on the strength of MOU and this Court vide common decision dated 23.2.2016 allowed the petitions and quashed the FIR (Annexure P-1) qua petitioners therein. The said decision dated 23.2.2016 was challenged by way of SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by the Company but the same was dismissed vide order dated 26.8.2016.